Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GRIMSBY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

RIVER DART NAVIGATION BILL

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]

Bill read the Third time and passed.

KENT RIVER BOARD (HARBOUR OF RYE) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Monday next, at Seven o'clock.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Glasgow Corporation, presented by Mr. John Maclay (under Section 7 of the Act); and ordered to be considered and to be printed. [Bill 129.]

PETITION

Agriculture (Chemical Sprays)

Mr. Kershaw: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present a Petition on behalf of 2,367 people, almost all of whom live in the County of Gloucester, Gloucester City or the City of Bristol, and of whom the majority are my constituents. In their Petition, they note that
owing to the deaths of large numbers of wild birds and animals in our chemically sprayed fields, their attention has been drawn to the fact that we are consuming with our fruit and vegetables traces of insecticides and fungicides which could be harmful to human health. They are also aware that manufacturers are permitted to sell as food and drink that which is not wholly food and drink but which contains synthetic flavour, sweetener and colouring matter.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that it may be made legally binding on all purveyors of fruit and vegetables that they have their wares clearly labelled "Sprayed with …" etc. or else "Unsprayed".
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

Economic Assistance

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement on his consultations with the Prime Minister of India concerning economic assistance for India's development plans.

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what money has been given or lent to the Government of India from the United Kingdom during the last two years; and whether loans or gifts are contemplated.

Mr. Healey: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement on his talks with the Finance Minister of India.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Duncan Sandys): My recent visit to Delhi and the subsequent visit of the Indian Finance Minister to London provided a useful opportunity to review Britain's economic assistance to India's development plans and to discuss the safeguards to be sought for Indian trade in our negotiations for entry into the European Common Market. Since July, 1960, we have signed loan agreements with the Government of India totalling £92 million, and a further loan of £13 million is under negotiation. In addition we have provided technical assistance costing about £¾ million.

Mr. Thomson: Can the Secretary of State give an assurance to the House that Her Majesty's Government will take the initiative in getting the consortium discussing aid proposals to India together very quickly, and will he consider giving the most generous possible aid for the current five-year plan?

Mr. Sandys: Arrangements for aid to India, as the hon. Gentleman has indicated, are normally conducted through the consortium. It had a meeting in May. A further meeting is due shortly, but the date has not yet been fixed. I am sure that the House will not expect me to anticipate now in public the line we shall take at the next meeting.

Mr. Tilney: I recognise the extreme poverty of India and the great financial difficulties of that member of the Commonwealth, but does not my right hon. Friend agree that £92 million is a very large sum of money considering that the supply of capital is limited? Is he not a little surprised that the representatives of India in the United Nations and elsewhere have taken up an attitude hardly friendly to the policies of the United Kingdom? Will he take this into account in considering further grants to India?

Mr. Sandys: It is not our practice to attach political conditions to aid. On the other hand, it is obvious that the attitude of other countries towards us is inevitably bound to affect to some extent our enthusiasm to strain our resources to help them.

Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side regard the success of India's five-year-plan as vital to the future of the Commonwealth and the survival of democracy in Asia—and possibly to the maintenance of peace in the Far East? Given that fact, does he really feel that £92 million is an adequate contribution by Her Majesty's Government, bearing in mind the fact that the United States Government, which have far smaller direct political commitments in India than we have, are giving four times as much? Will not he use his influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to try to increase the British contribution or, at least, to accelerate its payment?
On the question of the Common Market, can the Secretary of State say whether the Indian Government now agree that Her Majesty's Government's proposals to the Six would, if accepted, meet India's needs for comparable outlets; and can he assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will make no binding commitments to end India's existing advantages in the British market under Commonwealth preference with-

out getting equally binding commitments from the Six for the provision of comparable outlets for India when these Imperial preferential arrangements come to an end?

Mr. Sandys: That is rather a comprehensive supplementary question. I fully share the hon. Gentleman's view about the importance of the progress of India's economy and the progress of the political institutions in India as a very important element of stability for the whole free world.
I really do not think it fair of the hon. Member to suggest that the contribution we have already made—£92 million, with the further loan of £13 million now under negotiation—is inadequate, having regard to our resources and the many other demands put upon us. Nor do I think it reasonable to compare our contribution with that of the United States, whose resources are much greater and who attach just as much importance to the stability of India as we do.
As to the Common Market, no commitment will, of course, be entered into before the meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers in September, when the whole matter will be discussed.

Mr. Healey: But can the right hon. Gentleman answer my first question about the Common Market, namely, are the Indian Government now satisfied, as they were not before, that Her Majesty's Government's proposals to the Six would, if accepted, meet India's legitimate needs in an enlarged Common Market?

Mr. Sandys: I do not know of any Commonwealth Government who are satisfied—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—with the proposals that are now under discussion, but I think that that is what one would expect at this stage of the negotiations. We are in the very closest touch with the Indian Government, and we have explained to them— and I think that this is the main difference between us—that these negotiations are not an occasion on which we can reasonably ask for an improvement in their present position. What we can ask, and are seeking to obtain, is a safeguard of the trade that they at present enjoy and are at present carrying on with Britain and with Europe.

Mr. Tilney: While I do not object to some of the views expressed by the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), may I ask whether my right hon. Friend, having regard to the extreme limitation of capital in Great Britain today, will bear in mind the demands of our friends as well?

Mr. Sandys: I am not prepared to say that India is not one of our friends.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

Booklet

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations how many copies of his departmental booklet, "The Modern Commonwealth", have been distributed or bought in Great Britain, the Commonwealth and other countries, respectively.

Mr. Sandys: This booklet was designed primarily for free distribution. Some 55,000 copies have been distributed overseas through the British Information Services and some 20,000 to schools and interested bodies in Britain. In addition, several thousand copies have been sold through Her Majesty's Stationery Office. A reprint of another 14,000 has been ordered to meet further requirements for distribution and sale.

Sir T. Moore: As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am not given to flattering Ministers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]— but will my right hon. Friend appreciate that those of us who have read the pamphlet find it fascinating and extremely enlightening and illuminating? Will he, therefore, take all possible steps to have it distributed, or get it known, not only throughout the Commonwealth, but in those countries like the United States and others which have such a distorted view of our so-called British colonialism?

Mr. Sandys: I am glad that my hon. Friend found the pamphlet agreeable reading.

Mr. Strachey: May I, as a fellow author, congratulate the Secretary of State on his sales—I hope that he receives the due royalties on them; and on the opportunities for spreading this very useful pamphlet?

Oral Answers to Questions — SIERRA LEONE

Civil Service Pensioners

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether, in granting the recent loan to Sierra Leone, the position of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service pensioners who served during their active life in Sierra Leone was taken into account.

Mr. Sandys: No, Sir.

Mr. Tilney: Is that not very surprising, considering that I am told that only £3,300 a year would be needed to bring the pensions of our Overseas Civil Service pensioners to the level of the United Kingdom Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959? Is he not aware that 80 out of 170 pensioners are below that limit? Is not that a very bad advertisement for those who wish to serve the Crown overseas, and will it not induce them to remain at home?

Mr. Sandys: This loan is not a new development. It was part of the financial settlement made before independence and was announced to the House nearly eighteen months ago. I understand my hon. Friend's feelings and views on the subject, but we do not feel that to attach conditions to loans of this kind would necessarily be the best way to deal with the matter.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I sympathise with the motives behind the Question asked by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), but would not the Secretary of State agree that the hon. Gentleman's approach is quite wrong? Should not Her Majesty's Government take another look at this matter and consider taking over responsibility for pensions increases to people who have served the British Crown, whether in Sierra Leone or in other parts of the Commonwealth?

Mr. Sandys: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation told the House just the other day that the whole matter of the arrangements for pensions for those who have been serving overseas is at present being reviewed.

Oral Answers to Questions —  EDUCATION

School Building Programme, Leicester

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Education if he will increase the amount of £310,000 allocated for the 1963–64 school building programme of the Leicestershire County Council, in view of the rising numbers of the school population in the county.

The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles): Yes, Sir. After considering representations, I have increased the sum by £71,000 and have promised to add a further project costing about £50,000 when details are settled.

Mr. Farr: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply, may I ask whether he is really aware of the burst in population that has occurred in Leicestershire in the last few years? Moreover, is he aware that a recent survey showed that of eleven large local education authorities, Leicestershire was the only one in which the number of pupils on the roll has increased by more than the number of school places that will be available?

Sir D. Eccles: I am aware of the needs of Leicestershire, and I am awaiting its proposals for the 1964–65 programme.

Science and Mathematics Teachers

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Education what are the numbers of unfilled vacancies in science and mathematics in grammar, technical and other State schools

Sir D. Eccles: My Department is working out better methods of estimating the future needs of schools for teachers of particular subjects. The information about unfilled vacancies that I have obtained hitherto has understated the real needs of the schools.

Mr. Willey: Is the Minister aware that it was stated at a recent conference that the shortage of science teachers alone amounts to 4,000 graduates and 2,500 non-graduates; and that opinions were expressed that if we are to match the demand for science and mathematics teachers we shall have to double the numbers? Will the right hon. Gentleman face up to the fact that dramatic

action by him is called for if we are to provide the teaching demanded today?

Sir D. Eccles: I quite agree that the schools need a large number of science teachers, but I must try to find some method by which I can calculate what the needs really are. I hope that we shall soon have that method.

School Leaving Age

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Education whether he will make a statement on the raising of the school leaving age.

Sir D. Eccles: I am not yet ready to name a date for raising the school leaving age.

Mr. Willey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that for years he has declared himself unable to face up to that position because there is a shortage of teachers? Is he aware that in the meantime the shortage of teachers has become worse and that what we want is some policy of Her Majesty's Government to deal with the acute crisis of teacher supply and also a favourable reply on the Crowther Report?

Sir D. Eccles: I am indeed aware that the shortage of teachers has got worse because of circumstances over which we have no control. We are therefore reconsidering the question of teacher supply.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for years we have been aware of this shortage of teachers, which will get far worse in the next few years, and what is he doing about it? What is the Council's advice on this? How many more places have we to provide in the training colleges and the universities?

Sir D. Eccles: If the hon. Gentleman has been aware for years that the birth rate was going up and that women teachers were leaving the schools in great numbers, he is more perspicacious than we have been. We are reconsidering the whole problem of teacher supply.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he were to accede to the request of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) he might well prejudice the position of primary


schools, which is causing great anxiety to some of us, because of expense?

Sir D. Eccles: All these matters have to be taken into consideration.

Training Colleges (Married Students)

Mr. Denis Howell: asked the Minister of Education if he will amend the regulations concerning grants for recognised students at training colleges so that students who get married whilst at college can receive the same amount of support for their wives and families which is paid to students who are married before commencing training; and what is the estimated wastage of students who leave these courses before completion because they are unable to support their families on the normal student allowance.

Sir D. Eccles: No Sir: The wastage from this cause is believed to be very small. I do not think it desirable to subsidise marriage during the course.

Mr. Howell: Does not that most lamentable reply show a gross interference with the personal liberties of students, and is it not rather lunatic that the student who marries before he embarks on training can get support for his wife and family whereas if he does not he has to remain in a state of assumed celibacy for three years, and is this right? Does not the Minister realise that people who are marrying younger and having children should not be put in this position for three years during their training? Will he look at this matter again?

Sir D. Eccles: The Anderson Committee looked at this problem and advised that we should adhere to the present policy in the case of university students. It also set great store on uniformity between one kind of student and another, and I think that their advice was right.

Mr. Howell: Rather than rely on the advice of some nebulous body like the Anderson Committee, would it not be better to apply the normal rules of common sense to this important matter? I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter again as soon as I can.

Teacher Training Colleges (Principals)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Education whether he will request education authorities to regard teaching experience as essential in all appointments to the office of principal in teacher training colleges.

Sir D. Eccles: Such appointments are within the discretion of training college authorities, and I am sure they can be relied on to exercise that discretion suitably.

Mr. Thomas: The Minister has not answered my question. I asked him whether he would request the education authorities, or those responsible, to regard teaching experience as essential. Is he aware that when a vacancy for the principal-ship at the Barry Training College was recently advertised teaching experience was regarded as desirable? This is causing a great deal of offence to those who believe that in training colleges we ought to have people with much experience of teaching.

Sir D. Eccles: As a general rule, I would agree with the hon. Gentleman, but there may be exceptions to the rule, as Oxford and Cambridge have long recognised in the appointment of heads of colleges.

Sixth Form Students (Maintenance Grants)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Education if, in view of the increase of university awards, he now proposes to ask local education authorities to increase maintenance grants to sixth form students in grammar and comprehensive schools.

Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir. Local education authorities have the responsibility of fixing their own rates of maintenance allowances for school pupils.

Mr. Boyden: Does not this work out very unfairly as between areas? If the right hon. Gentleman will not consider raising, or asking local authorities to raise, maintenance allowances generally, will he consider asking those which pay lower allowances to bring them up to the level of the higher ones?

Sir D. Eccles: I shall look into that.

Backward Readers

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Education how many adjustment classes for backward readers were held in 1961; and how many of these classes were taken by part-time married women teachers.

Sir D Eccles: Local education authorities are not asked to show classes of this kind separately in their statistical returns. The reason for this is that arrangements for helping backward readers vary a great deal and it would be difficult to put them into a small number of categories.

Mr. Boyden: Will the right hon Gentleman do something to see that local authorities which do not carry out this work do something about it? Is he aware that this is one of the best ways of eliminating backwardness, which ultimately will be very much more expensive when these children find themselves in special schools?

Sir D. Eccles: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of taking backward readers in small classes, and Her Majesty's inspectors are continually trying to get authorities to put this into practice.

Sir J. Pitman: Has the Minister had any report from Walsall and Oldham concerning remedial teaching, and can he assure the House that he is looking carefully into the possibility that a change in medium is just as important as staffing ratios and the method of teaching, and that he is watching the situation?

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir. The first reports from Walsall and Oldham are very encouraging, and I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall watch this matter with care.

Mr. Hale: As considerable publicity has already been given to these very successful reports, could they not be made available in the Library?

Sir D. Eccles: I shall consider that.

International Language (English)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Minister of Education what steps he is taking to facilitate the development of English as an international language.

Sir D. Eccles: In a speech on 13th June I outlined a three-point programme. This is in essence to establish standards of English; to develop mass media for use in teaching it; and to train and send overseas experts who will train others to teach it. Bodies which could plan or carry out research on standards and mass media already exist in this country, and following the recent Commonwealth Education Conference at Delhi we are providing 30 expert teacher-trainers. But the scale of our effort is quite inadequate. A combined drive by all the English-speaking peoples is needed, and I am considering how best to set about this.

Mr. Woodburn: I welcome that reply so far as it goes. Has the Minister's attention been called to the recent report of the Federation of British Industries on the necessity of setting up a National Institute of English, that this is in the Report of the Commonwealth Conference to which he has referred, and that statistics show that English is winning the race as a European and an international language? Is he prepared to take any steps to help these people, both children and adults abroad and in the Colonies, by producing some sort of basic English, rather more extensive than the wartime method, to facilitate the learning of English and get rid of some of the stupidities which make it almost impossible for foreigners to understand it.

Sir D. Eccles: We are considering all these matters, but it is necessary to bring the Americans into this, as it is their language as well as ours.

Mr. Fell: Is this not a rather important paint, seeing that so far the Europeans' combined knowledge of English has not been able to produce a legal translation of the Treaty of Rome, and would it not be a good thing to take some advice from the right hon. Gentleman who proposed this?

Sir J. Pitman: While welcoming very much the speech of the Minister in Rome, may I ask him how it has bean received in other parts, particularly in America and the Commonwealth, and when he thinks that we may be in a position to get on from potential action to the prospect that he has pointed out?

Sir D. Eccles: I think that I can say that it has been well received and that some charitable foundations are interested in it. I hope that in the autumn I shall be able to make a statement.

Maladjusted Children

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Education what new provision for maladjusted children has been made, or has been planned, by local education authorities consequent upon the issue of his Circular 348.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): Four hundred and twenty-eight new school places have been provided since the circular was issued; a further 560 will be provided by major building projects already approved. We are considering proposals for an additional 880 places. A small proportion of the total consists of accommodation to be provided by voluntary bodies. In addition, local education authorities provide 54 special day classes, mostly recently established, attended by 675 maladjusted pupils.

Teachers (Political Views)

Mr. Marsh: asked the Minister of Education if he will issue a circular to all education authorities asking them to refrain from retaining in their employment teachers whose publicly expressed views make it clear that they regard the children of some races and religion as inferior to others.

Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir. Authorities are aware that it rests primarily with them to decide whether there are grounds for terminating a teacher's engagement. The House will be aware that the Coventry Authority yesterday decided to suspend Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Marsh: Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that Fascism in British schools is not a matter for this House or for his Ministry? Is he not aware that this gentleman is engaged under the Ministry of Education in teaching civics to children? Would he not agree that one of the most important principles of civics is that an attack on Jews and coloured people is an attack on civilised people?

Sir D. Eccles: I sympathise with the political views the hon. Member has expressed in this matter. But a teacher's position depends on whether his politics are conducted in the school or not. I am the final court of appeal. If this case comes to me, I shall consider it with great care.

Mr. Hocking: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the extreme anxiety of parents in Coventry? Will he also tell us how checks are made from time to time to see that extreme and obnoxious views are not circulated in the classroom?

Sir D. Eccles: It is the business of the head teacher to know what is happening in his school, and it is because of that, I imagine, that the Coventry authority has acted.

Mr. Wiley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even in a democracy one can stretch tolerance so far as to endanger democracy itself? Will he therefore make it abundantly clear that these are abhorrent views for anyone in the teaching profession to express?

Sir D. Eccles: I must make it clear that my authority in regard to teachers is concerned with what they do inside school. If an employing authority sees fit to suspend a teacher, and the teacher anneals to me, I must decide the case on its merits.

Mr. Crossman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while everybody in Coventry abhors the views expressed, some of us have a great respect for the local education authority, which is determined, at all costs, not to act unless it has overwhelming proof against a teacher? Is he further aware that this teacher was carefully watched year after year and that no evidence, up till recently, was adduced against him? We should bear in mind that this is a problem not only of abhorrence of a doctrine but of respect for an education authority which believes in the freedom of a teacher.

Sir D. Eccles: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention.

University Students (Grants)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Education what reply he has sent to the representations made to him by local


education authorities regarding the inadequacy of the proposed grants for university students.

Sir D. Eccles: The London County Council is the only authority which has told me that it considers the increases inadequate. I am considering my reply.

Sir T. Moore: I am greatly relieved by the comforting nature of my right hon. Friend's reply, which seems to indicate that my information is limited. Will he bear in mind that quite a number of professors and senior students have indicated that, in their opinion, the grants are still inadequate? Will he do what he can to allay their fears, doubts or suspicions?

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Ridley: What is the cost of the increases my right hon. Friend has announced?

Sir D. Eccles: I hope I have the figure right. I think it is £5½ million.

Annan Committee (Report)

Mrs. White: asked the Minister of Education what steps are to be taken to implement the main proposals in the Annan Report.

Sir D. Eccles: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I accept the Report's main conclusion that more Russian should be taught in schools and technical colleges. The immediate need is to provide more teachers and, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) on 6th June, I have already arranged for a pilot course to be started in the autumn. We are studying the other recommendations in the Report in the light of comments now being made by teachers and others.

Mrs. White: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as there are fewer than 250 pupils in the United Kingdom taking Russian at A level, urgent action is required if we are to keep pace with Russian advances in technology and science?

Sir D. Eccles: I agree, but the problem goes back to getting enough Russian teachers.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Building Programme

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will state the principal reasons for the reduction in council-house building last year to 93,000 houses and flats in England and Wales; and what steps he proposes to take to stop this continued fall.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): The number of completions last year was mainly limited by the slowing down in building caused by the overload on the industry. There has already been some improvement as a result of the measures taken by the Government.

Mr. Allaun: Is the hon. Member aware that this is the lowest number of council houses built since 1947, and that the main reason is not the one he has given but the exorbitant interest rates which councils have to pay? Many of the councils visited recently by his right hon. Friend have stated that the Minister's proposals are no good unless interest rates are reduced.

Mr. Rippon: The hon. Member is quite wrong. The main reason is the one I have given. The trouble last year lay in the slowness of building, which was shown by the fact that only 79 council houses were completed for every 100 under construction at the beginning of the year. That was the reason for the Government telling local authorities to concentrate on completions if they wanted to get good results.

Mr. M. Stewart: Is the hon. Member aware that the decline last year as compared with 1960 was only the last stage of a steady decline which has been going on many years? If he studies the matter he will not be able to avoid the conclusion that interest rates are one of the major causes. Does he regard this decline over the years as desirable, or does he want to get back to something like the figure we had 12 or 15 years ago?

Mr. Rippon: No one suggests that the figure of 93,000 is anything like sufficient to meet the accepted priorities.


That is why we have been urging local authorities to have realistic programmes. I have answered the Question put to me by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). Interest rates are another matter.

Mr. Stewart: Granted that 93,000 is unsatisfactory, has the hon. Gentleman any idea of what ought to be the figure of building?

Mr. Rippon: One has to look at the programme of each authority and determine it on its merits.

Improvements (Building Society Loans)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister of Welsh Affairs if he will take powers to grant financial assistance to building societies, to enable them to make loans to cover half the cost of installing baths, hot water and inside toilets in older houses where improvement grants are applicable.

Mr. Rippon: My right hon. Friend sees no case for taking new powers. Building societies already can and do make advances for improvement works. In addition, local authorities are empowered to make loans for the improvement of houses and there has been a steady rise in recent years in the amounts advanced by them for this purpose.

Mr. Allaun: Is the hon. Member aware that the excuse for the miserable lack of progress in improving older houses is that some landlords cannot afford to lay out their half of the capital, even though they can recoup it in higher rents? Will he have another look at this idea, since the building societies in 1959 were enabled—rightly so—to provide buyers of older houses with money because the Government gave them low interest loans? Could not local authorities be helped similarly with low interest loans for this purpose?

Mr. Rippon: I do not want to go into the question of interest rates. We have no evidence that owners or anyone wishing to improve their property are having difficulty in borrowing money. Local authorities are lending more money than ever before for this

and other purposes. Last year they lent £99 million compared with £66 million the year before.

Residential Property (Industrial Redevelopment)

Mr. Cliffe: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will introduce legislation to prevent residential property which is in reasonable condition and let to tenants being re-developed for industrial or other purposes which would result in tenants being rendered homeless.

Mr. Rippon: No, Sir. Shortage of housing is a factor for the local planning authority to take into account before granting permission for redevelopment. If it is not itself the housing authority for its area, it is obliged under the law as it stands to consult that authority before reaching a decision. In the event of disagreement the case has to be referred to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Cliffe: I thank the hon. Member for that reply, but unfortunately the blueprint he has just related to the House is not the one that operates in practice. Now that we have had the Rent Act in operation for five years there is sufficient evidence to prove that there exists widespread human misery caused by insecurity of tenure, by landlords demanding exorbitant rents from properties which are sub-standard, although tenants have spent literally hundreds of pounds on their homes and then been given notice to quit——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will now ask a question It is beginning to sound rather like a speech.

Mr. Cliffe: Can I ask what the Minister is prepared to do about it? Thousands of letters must have gone to the Ministry, and letters and protests are going there now. I have received a letter from the Ministry in reply to the same question, but it is in such vague terms that it tells me nothing and I thought that this would be an opportunity of getting a reply.

Mr. Rippon: The hon. Gentleman may be referring to a letter Which I


wrote to him in connection with the next Question. I do not think that there is any difficulty about powers. This Question simply relates to the redevelopment of residential property for other purposes.

Flats, Shoreditch (Acquisition)

Mr. Cliffe: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he has studied the letter sent to him by the hon. Member for Shore-ditch and Finsbury, relating to the concern felt by the Shore-ditch Metropolitan Borough Council, following the acquisition of the flats known as Hamilton Buildings, Shore-ditch, by an investment company regarding the shortage of residential accommodation in Shore-ditch; and what action he is taking in the matter.

Mr. Rippon: Yes, Sir, and a reply was sent to the hon. Member on 26th June. I can now confirm that the Shore-ditch Borough Council has resolved to make a compulsory purchase order on the property. My right hon. Friend cannot therefore make any further comment on the case.

Mr. Cliffe: May I have your Ruling on that, Mr. Speaker? May I make no comments at all, although this letter was written three weeks ago?

Mr. Speaker: This is Question Time. It is not a time for making comments. If the hon. Member likes to ask a supplementary question, I will gladly allow it.

Mr. Cliffe: Is the Minister aware that the block of flats which he now knows as Hamilton Buildings was recently bought by an investment company which then proceeded within a matter of two weeks of the purchase to give notice to quit to 17 decontrolled tenants and that —[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—it had seven vacant flats which would provide reasonable accommodation, and that when its agent was approached—[HON. MEMBERS: Speech."]—and asked to provide this accommodation, he said that the company intended to empty this site, to demolish the building and develop the site for commercial purposes? Surely that is not the intention of the Government.

Mr. Rippon: No doubt the facts, such as they were, induced the council to make the compulsory purchase order.

Mr. M. Stewart: Will the Parliamentary Secretary ask his right hon. Friend to bear in mind when considering this compulsory purchase order that there have been a good many events in East London lately obliging anyone who observes them to come to the conclusion that it is only by the increasing purchase of property by the municipality that we shall be able to provide people with accommodation at reasonable rents?

Mr. Rippon: I do not think that that generalisation follows from this case. I can assure the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend will deal with it, as always, on its merits.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Water Supplies, Oldham

Mr. Hale: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what reply he has now sent to the letters from the Oldham Borough Corporation, initiated in 1960, asking for consideration of special local grants for increasing and improving the local water supply.

Mr. Rippon: I assume that the hon. Member refers to the suggestion that local authorities should be empowered to contribute towards the cost of installing separate service pipes in place of pipes common to several dwellings. My right hon. Friend has told the Corporation that he would consider this but that he could not say when an opportunity for legislation would occur.

Mr. Hale: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that apparently the Minister has been considering it for eighteen months? This is an important matter, and this town has a terrible backlog of improvements which are essential in the public interest. When he considers the matter, will he also consider the question of the present situation of the Oldham water in respect of which he told me the other day that he did not know whether it was radioactive or not? In view of some public apprehension caused by the question of radioactivity having been


referred to a private meeting of the corporation, would he obtain and publish the information?

Mr. Rippon: The radioactivity of the water is another matter. We may be able to deal with the subject mentioned in the Question in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, but I must point out that the local authority associations themselves are not altogether convinced of the necessity for legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Factory, Leslie

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that another factory is shortly to close in Leslie, Fife; and, in view of the fact that this is an electrical industry of the type needed in the area, whether he will take steps to offer the firm the necessary assistance to enable its continued existence.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): The factory to which the hon. Member refers is being closed down for commercial reasons and no question of Board of Trade assistance arises. The parent company propose, however, to go ahead with another project in Dunfermline which will provide some 400 jobs.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is to happen to the premises which will be available in Leslie? Is no attempt being made by his Department to get another tenant? Is he aware that the psychological effect of this plus the fact that the Rothes colliery is in the same area are causing very great concern to constituents in that part of my constituency?

Mr. Erroll: Yes, I am aware of the genuine concern and I am looking into the subject of the Leslie factory.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister what communication he has received from President Kennedy on the success of high altitude tests and their military value.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): There have as yet been no high altitude nuclear test explosions in the current series.

Mr. Shinwell: On the general question of tests, will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that these tests have gone far enough and that it is desirable to make representations to President Kennedy, and that if the right hon. Gentleman is earnestly seeking the promotion of disarmament and the termination of the arms race, which no doubt he is, it is desirable to take some action?

The Prime Minister: The tests with which the Question is concerned are on Johnston Island. We agreed to the series of tests on Christmas Island for reasons which I have explained to the House, and I hope that that series will shortly be concluded.

Mr. Shinwell: Does that mean that so far as the United Kingdom is concerned we shall not proceed with any more tests?

The Prime Minister: That is another question. I am talking about the tests which it was agreed should take place on Christmas Island and of which the House is well aware, and I hope that that series will soon be concluded.

Mr. Fernyhough: Can the Prime Minister say whether the reason for these high-altitude tests not having taken place is that President Kennedy is now taking cognisance of what world scientific opinion thinks about their danger?

The Prime Minister: I was just stating as a matter of fact that no high-altitude test explosion had taken place.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Prime Minister what reply he has sent to the letter sent to him on 5th June by Professor Lewis Don Leet offering to collaborate with Her Majesty's Government's scientific advisers in the detection of underground tests.

The Prime Minister: Professor Leet wrote to me at the request of the hon. Lady enclosing an offprint of an article by him published in the magazine called the "Scientific American".
This article has been studied by the Government's scientific advisers and a reply has been sent on my behalf to Professor Leet's letter.

Mrs. Castle: Is not this gentleman the seismologist in charge of the seismological station of Harvard University? Is it not a fact that he believes that he has discovered a seismological method for detecting underground tests and has written to the Prime Minister to say that he would greatly appreciate any opportunity of discussions with the British Government's scientific advisers on the possibility of testing his method? Can the right hon. Gentleman treat this approach as a matter of great seriousness? Will he assure the House that he will send an affirmative answer to this request by Professor Don Leet?

The Prime Minister: I have answered Professor Leet, and if Professor Leet wishes to publish my answer it is for him to do so; but it would be quite wrong to publish it until he has received it.

Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that in reply to earlier Questions, when I asked the Prime Minister about Professor Don Leet's discovery, he said that Her Majesty's Government's scientific advisers were always willing to examine any evidence which might lead to a basis on which we could ban nuclear tests once and for all in a foolproof way? Will the Prime Minister give us a more constructive answer now?

The Prime Minister: It is simply a matter of courtesy. Professor Leet wrote to me and I have sent a reply. I do not think that I should publish the reply. It is for him to publish it, if he wishes to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE PRESS (REPORT)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if he will state the reason for the delay in publication of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Press; and what steps are being taken to shorten the period of delay.

The Prime Minister: I do not expect that there will be any delay in the publication of this Report.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Prime Minister agree that this inquiry and subsequent report are of tremendous urgency and importance to our liberties, especially in view of recent happenings, such as those in Trafalgar Square?

The Prime Minister: I do not quite follow the precise connection between the two problems. I hope that the Report will be published quite soon.

Mr. Jay: Has the Prime Minister considered asking Sir Harry Pilkington to join this Commission?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER OF LABOUR (SPEECH)

Mr. Fell: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Minister of Labour at Long Melford on Saturday, 30th June, about the Commonwealth and the Common Market represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Minister of Labour at Long Melford on 30th June on the problems of the Common Market represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Minister of Labour at Long Melford on 30th June about the Common Market and the Commonwealth represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made on 30th June by the Minister of Labour at Long Melford, Suffolk, about the Common Market and the Commonwealth represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Minister of Labour at Long Melford on 30th June about the Common Market and the Commonwealth represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Stone-house: asked the Prime 'Minister if the public speech of the Minister of Labour at Long Melford on Saturday, 30th June, regarding Commonwealth countries and the Common Market, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: These Questions were placed on the Order Paper before my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour made his personal statement on Tuesday. I assume that, in the light of that statement, hon. Members would not wish to pursue the matter.

Mr. Fell: I must apologise to the Prime Minister for wishing to pursue the matter. I must ask the Prime Minister if he is not aware that a very large number of people in this country were deeply shocked by the fact that when the Minister of Labour had realised that his remarks had greatly offended large numbers of people, not only in this country but also in the Commonwealth, he did not take the step of resigning at once? [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, shut up."] It so happens that in the short time I have been in this House—[An HON. MEMBER "Too long."] Is it not a fact that one of the things one has to learn is the highest possible regard this House puts upon the good behaviour and integrity of Members of this House, and particularly of Ministers, and that when Ministers fail they should resign and get out? It does not stop there. I am deeply disappointed. May I ask the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]

Mr. Gibson-Watt: On a point of order. This supplementary question, by my stopwatch, has gone on for 92 seconds. You yourself, Mr. Speaker, wish to see that supplementary questions go quickly, and so do some hon. Members on the back benches. This is the longest question I have heard.

Mr. Speaker: It is not the longest question I have heard, alas, but it is a very selfish pastime to ask long supplementary questions. I hope the hon. Member can conclude his question briefly.

Mr. Fell: Further to that point of order. May I say that I at least do not come here seeking the kind of applause which was accorded to a right hon. Friend on Monday? At least I come to praise the Commonwealth and not to bury it. May I complete my supplementary question? The rest of it is short. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I know that it will offend some hon. and right hon. Friends, but I worry about the

people of the nation, and not about hon. Friends.

Mr. Speaker: I should be obliged if the hon. Member could help me by concluding his question.

Mr. Fell: Yes, I shall do that. I am extremely sorry that I have been led off the track by an hon. Friend who happened to have a stopwatch with him. Has not the Prime Minister realised that he also has a serious responsibility in this matter? At the very least the Prime Minister was responsible to see that the Minister of Labour was in this House on Monday, if he was to make an apology at all, and to make the apology then. Further——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has reached the limit which I can allow him. Mrs. Castle.

Mr. Fell: On a point of order. I sincerely apologise to you if I have transgressed your feeling about the rules on supplementary questions. I have been here this afternoon and heard a number of long supplementary questions, and on other occasions there have been a number of long supplementary questions. I did not wish to ask a long supplementary question, but I was interrupted for a long time by a somewhat asinine point of order asked by an hon. Friend who is very close to the Front Bench. May I therefore in a very few words complete the question that I was about to ask?

Mr. Speaker: I have taken account of all the circumstances occurring in my presence and I thought that in the interests of other hon. Members I should not permit further time to be occupied by the hon. Member's question.

Mrs. Castle: Is the Prime Minister aware that in my Question I am not concerned with what the Minister of Labour intended to say, on which I accept his explanation, but with the Government's attitude to the words he did in fact use? In view of the damage that has been caused in the Commonwealth by this incident, could we this afternoon have the Prime Minister's personal and clear assurance that it is not the opinion of the Government that the Commonwealth members have been behaving unreasonably during these negotiations and that they are in fact perfectly


entitled to, and have, Her Majesty's Government's support in fighting for the preservation of Commonwealth interests?

The Prime Minister: In regard to the first supplementary question, I do not think I have anything to add. The House is accustomed to statements of this kind. I think my right hon. Friend's statement was clear and sincere and met with the general acceptance of the House.
In regard to the policy question, which is a more important matter, I think Her Majesty's Government's policy has been made clear over and over again. We intend to proceed with these negotiations, which within a comparatively short time must reach a conclusion. If we can reach a settlement which will enable us to become accessories to the Treaty of Rome while supporting all the proper interests and obligations that we have to the Commonwealth, to our E.F.T.A. partners and to British agriculture, then we shall do so. All this was clearly debated. Her Majesty's Government's policy was clearly set out by the Lord Privy Seal in a two days' debate. I think there is general acceptance that it would be wise to continue the negotiation, to see what results from it, and then to make our judgment.

Mr. Lipton: Would it not help to avoid similar misunderstandings in future if the Prime Minister were an announce the long-awaited and eagerly-expected Ministerial reshuffle which we know he is to announce in October, or thereabouts? Would it not be in the interests of the country and the Commonwealth if those Ministerial rearrangements were announced now?

The Prime Minister: I shall bear the hon. Member's application in mind.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the Prime Minister realise that there was a great deal of angry concern among hon. Members on this side of the House when immediately subsequent to the apology we observed a great deal of self-satisfied smirks being exchanged on the Treasury Bench? Can the Prime Minister tell the House what would have happened if a Labour Minister had made the same kind of stupid remark and he had been Leader of the Opposition? It would not have been passed off as the right hon. Gentleman

hopes it will be passed off this afternoon. Is he aware that the kind of off-the-cuff remark which the Minister of Labour made is very often what a Minister is thinking rather than the well prepared brief to which we are so much subject in this House?

The Prime Minister: In reply to those questions, I do not think I have anything to add to what I have said.

Mr. Wyatt: Does the Prime Minister realise that it makes a very refreshing change to have Ministers saying what they actually think? Is it not very unworthy of him to discourage this quite kindly, able Minister by making him apologise for something which is probably very sensible and, if it is not Government policy, jolly well ought to be?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member has such a long tradition of indiscretions that I should be sorry to interfere with it.

Mr. Stonehouse: Notwithstanding some of the remarks made in the House this afternoon, is the Prime Minister aware that most of the House respects the courteous and sincere way in which the Minister withdrew his most unfortunate remarks? He also said in the course of his speech that the United Kingdom will reserve the right to make the decision as to whether we shall join the European Economic Community. Does this mean that the decision will be made effectively before the Prime Ministers' meeting in September?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, of course not. My right hon. Friend was answering the suggestion that it would be for the Prime Ministers collectively, by a majority or some other method, to reach a decision. The responsibility must rest on Her Majesty's Government, supported or not supported by the House of Commons and Parliament. That is the only point on that particular issue.

Mr. Stonehouse: May I pursue that?

The Prime Minister: I should like to thank the hon. Member for that part of his statement which was so generous and fair.

Mr. Stonehouse: May I ask whether the actual decision will be made before the Commonwealth Prime Ministers have been consulted?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. First, we do not yet know what will be the concluding picture which will result from the negotiations. We shall know that, perhaps, at the end of this month or the beginning of the next. We shall have to consider it and discuss it with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. In the light of the discussions we shall have the heavy responsibility of deciding in our owl minds what it is right to do, and we shall then recommend it to Parliament.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 9TH JULY—We shall ask the House to approve a Timetable Motion for the completion of the Committee and remaining stages of the Pipe-lines Bill [Lords].

At seven o'clock, as the House is aware, the Chairman of Ways and Means has set down opposed Private Business for consideration.

TUESDAY, 10TH JULY—Supply [23rd Allotted Day]: Committee.

There will be a debate on Education in Scotland, which will arise on the appropriate Votes.

Afterwards, Second Reading of the Building Societies Bill [Lords], and of the Town and Country Planning Bill [Lords], which are consolidation Measures.

Motions on Importation and Keeping Orders on Coypus and Mink.

WEDNESDAY, I I TH JULY—Report and Third Reading of the Licensing (Scot. land) Bill [Lords].

THURSDAY, 12TH JULY—Supply [24th Allotted Day]: Committee.

A debate will take place on Science and Industry, on the appropriate Votes.

House of Commons Members' Fund Bill: Committee and remaining stages.

Motions on the Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) Regulations, and the Commonwealth Preference (West Cameroon) Order.

FRIDAY, 13TH JULY—Motion On the National Assistance (Determination of Need) Amendment Regulations, 1962.

MONDAY, I 6TH JULY—The proposed business will be:

Second Reading of the Uganda Independence Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.

Committee and remaining stages of the Building Societies Bill [Lords], and the Town and Country Planning Bill [Lords].

Motions on the White Fish and Herring and Salmon Schemes and Orders.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this habit of introducing guillotine Motions is really becoming intolerable? How many more are we to have? How many have we had already? Is not this the fourth this Session? What conceivable justification can there be for gagging hon. Members of this House in this way?
I have a number of other questions to put to the right hon. Gentleman. First, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that as Thursday's debate will take place on the appropriate Votes we hope that it will cover—we intend that it shall cover— science in the universities as well? "Science and industry" was the phrase that he used.
The right hon. Gentleman is proposing that we should take the National Assistance Regulations on Friday. He will recall that the other day his right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, in reply to requests from hon. Members on this side of the House and, indeed, on both sides, that the date on which the increased payments became operative should be advanced, pleaded in aid that it would take too long to get the whole thing through the House? My right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition then promised that we would facilitate the passage of the Regulations.
In view of that promise, and of the fact that the Regulations are to go


through next Friday, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to reconsider the question of the date of operation to see whether this cannot be brought into effect, or the amounts cannot be paid, a long way in advance of 24th September?
Finally, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make clear whether the Motion on the White Fish and Herring and Salmon Schemes and Orders, for debate on Monday week, includes the question of a subsidy for fishing vessels built in foreign ports, and whether, therefore, we shall be able to have a really full debate on that subject?

Mr. Macleod: We shall be discussing the merits of the timetable Motion on Monday, but I am bound to say that I have never seen any Leader of the Opposition face a Guillotine as cheerfully as did the right hon. Gentleman on this occasion. Whatever the merits of the Motion, nobody could have been very surprised by the announcement which I have made.
I have noted what the right hon. Gentleman said about Thursday's business and can say that Government speakers will reply accordingly.
To meet the desire of the House we have put the National Assistance Regulations on at the earliest possible date. They will have been scrutinised by the Select Committee, but they must go through another place. The question whether this could conceivably affect the date of the bringing into operation of the Regulations was discussed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Assistance when he made his statement in the House. No doubt he will deal with the matter fully on Thursday.
On Monday, 16th July, it may be that the earlier business will not occupy the House for very long and that we shall spend a good deal of the day on the Motion to which I have referred. I think that the answer to the specific point put by the Leader of the Opposition is that the matter to which he referred comes into, but only indirectly, the discussions.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Leader of the House aware that his right hon. Friend

rested his refusal to advance the date of the operation of the new National Assistance Regulations entirely on the difficulty of getting them through both Houses of Parliament? Is he aware that there is no reason whatever to anticipate any delay in another place about this matter? Will he therefore at least ask his right hon. Friend seriously to consider advancing the date? I am sure that that would be consistent with the wishes of hon. Members on this side of the House and of many hon. Members opposite as well.

Mr. Macleod: The interval of time is perfectly normal. I do not think that the recollection of the Leader of the Opposition is correct. When the Minister answered this point on 3rd July, he said:
Although we can, of course, discuss the date when we debate the Regulations, my own view—and I must put this frankly to hon. Members—is that this is, not only for administrative reasons but from the more important social point of view"—
my right hon. Friend had elaborated that earlier—
just about right".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1962; Vol. 662, c. 290.]

Sir J. Pitman: Is it possible to deal with the early day Motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) in respect of monopolise created by take-over bids? My right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) received an assurance on a previous Thursday which was rather encouraging, and since the House is very anxious to discuss the fact that the Government have no powers in this matter may I ask whether we shall have a chance to debate that Motion?

[That this House, concerned at the need for providing adequate safeguards against monopoly, urges the Government to ensure that it has the requisite powers for this purpose, and meanwhile to support and provide time for the consideration of the Bill presented by the honourable Member for Bath.]

Mr. Macleod: The assurance which I gave was meant to be encouraging towards the Motion, but not towards the prospect of finding time for it.

Mr. T. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the decision to


impose a timetable Motion on the monopoly-creating Pipe-Lines Bill? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Standing Committee which is discussing the Bill still has to deal with about 52 Clauses and six Schedules; that there are about 60 Amendments on the Notice Paper in the name of the Minister and another nine new Clauses to be moved by the Minister? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Committee will be able to do its work in a reasonable manner, whether there be a timetable Motion or not, during this month? Would not it be better to withdraw the Motion, or, indeed, to withdraw the Bill, and to start afresh next Session?

Mr. Macleod: The hon. Gentleman is right. That is the alternative—it always is for the Government—when this sort of situation arises. Either the Government must withdraw a Bill or ask the House to agree to a timetable Motion so that the discussions on the Bill may be completed within what the Government, at least, consider a reasonable period of time. We are opting for the second course.

Mr. E. Johnson: May I ask whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation in the near future to implement the Resolution passed by this House without dissent on 25th May in respect of the pensions of widows of officers and other ranks?

Mr. Macleod: I said, after making a business statement a week or two ago that when the Government accepted that Motion—it was accepted by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary—we were not making it an excuse for delay, but a springboard for action. I can assure my hon. Friend that he will not have long to wait before he finds those words justified by a statement from this Box.

Mr. Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House when we may expect him to find time for a debate on the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton), supported by a very large number of Members on this side of the House, calling for an extension of public ownership?

[That this House, noting the failure of the Government to organise the nation's

affairs with the result that unemployment continues and the expansion of industry is prevented in areas previously dominated by the manufacture of textiles, shipbuilding, coalmining etc.; realising that even the electrical equipment industries, at present prosperous, are vulnerable to fluctuations caused by financial manipulation; disturbed by the growing tendency to the creation of monopolies in private industry; condemns a society in which personal profit rather than social welfare determines the Row of investment capital; calls attention to the menacing growth of the economic power of a small minority of people, to the growth of private monopoly and the concentration of financial capital, and the consequent growth of economic power in organisations which are run for private profit and not in the national interests, to the growth of the giant corporations and private financial trusts which are increasingly dominating British life and economy; and calls for an urgent investigation into this trend and the application of a policy which will provide for an extension of public ownership so that Parliamentary control is established over the means of production, distribution and exchange, to enable a Socialist Britain to play an effective part in providing an expanding standard of living and contribute to the development of world resources in order that economic factors which foster national and international unrest can be removed.]

Mr. Macleod: Perhaps I could discuss that with the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Hirst: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Sir J. Pitman) relating to the Motion signed by well over 60 hon. Members on this side of the House is highly unsatisfactory? Is he aware that there is a real measure of concern and not a little unfavourable comment about the dilatory nature of the Government's conduct on this monopoly question? Can he give a more reassuring answer to my hon. Friend?

Mr. Macleod: My reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Sir J. Pitman) was, and was taken to be, sympathetic, but that simply does not


create extra days of Government time in July for this Motion to be discussed. This does not mean that the subject-matter of the Motion is not one which is at present being carefully considered by the Government.

Mr. Shinwell: Instead of advancing a flippant reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood), will the right hon. Gentleman take this matter a little more seriously? Is he aware that this Motion is a definite challenge to the Government's policy? Can such a challenge to the Government's policy be disregarded? Does the Leader of the House adopt a contemptuous attitude to a Motion of this description?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir; on the contrary, I was delighted to see this Motion on the Order Paper. I do not think that it is suitable to provide Government time for it, but if the Opposition asked for a Supply day to debate that Motion we would consider it.

Mr. Thorpe: May we assume that the Government are not prepared to provide time for a debate on the Annual Price Review before the Summer Recess? Are they still relying on the official Opposition to provide a Supply day, and, if so, have any representations been made, and with what results?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last night the majority of the House of Commons, led by the Prime Minister, voted for a proposition that the present pay pause was unfair in its incidence, was not being uniformly applied and could not be prolonged indefinitely, and that it was high time now for the Government to announce an overall fair plan for incomes?
Notwithstanding the fact that the right hon. Gentleman did not see fit to go into the Lobby in support of the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer for that proposition, may we take it that we shall have an important statement of policy from the Chancellor consequent upon the wishes of his hon. Friends?

Mr. Macleod: There has been no request for time for a discussion of this Motion. It is sometimes discussed, and sometimes it is not. It is normally taken, if it is discussed, in Supply time.

Last night's debate ended, I think, in a very amicable and suitable way.

Mr. Lawson: May I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider on the business for next Wednesday, taking both the Report stage and Third Reading of the Licensing (Scotland) Bill [Lords)? In looking at this matter, we should bear in mind that we carried out the Committee stage of this Bill under an agreed timetable, and that there were very many matters that might have been discussed for a much longer period than was actually the case if we had not done it under an agreed timetable. Will he therefore agree to take the Third Reading on a separate day from the Report stage?

Mr. Macleod: I would certainly consider that. I recognise the validity of the point which the hon. Member makes. I do not desire to push business late on that night. Perhaps we might see how we get on and at a suitable time see what is the appropriate thing to do.

Mr. Warbey: With reference to the oil companies' pipeline promotion Bill, will the Leader of the House take into account the fact that this Bill is a long and controversial one, introduced very late in the Session, which is completely failing to carry out the undertaking given by the Minister himself about pipelines? Does he not think that it would be the decent and proper course to follow the precedent set up by his predecessor last Session and apply the Guillotine to the Bill itself?

Mr. Macleod: I appreciate the feelings of the hon. Member on this matter. As I have said, we will be able to debate whether a timetable Motion is appropriate or not on Monday. Most people, I think, who follow this matter, and, of course, the hon. Member himself has been very closely involved in the Committee proceedings, will recognise that the situation facing the Government is that on the present method of procedure, or at the present tempo, there would not be the slightest chance—of course, the hon. Gentleman would welcome that, and I recognise it—of the Bill becoming law. In view of that, the Government thought it right to put down a timetable Motion.

Commander Pursey: May I ask the Leader of the House if he would give the date, and particularly the time, when the annual Estimates of Greenwich Hospital will be taken this year? Is he aware that this is Government business, and that these Estimates are the equivalent of a Cotton-Clore £4 million property and investment organisation, and that the Seamen's Orphanage is now being developed as an officers' fee-paying school?
Is he also aware that some hon. Members of this House have a certain amount of responsibility in this matter, and that several hon. Members, both mercantile and legal, would be interested in the subject and want to take part in the debate? Is it his object that 100 Government supporters will have to be kept here until the early hours of the morning for the Closure Motion to be moved, and ought he not to consider, if not his own hon. Members, the members of the staff, and that proper arrangements should be made to take this Government business in the normal hours for the business of the House?

Mr. Macleod: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that although the Motion on Greenwich Hospital and the Travers Foundation is not included in the busines for next week, we Will take it in Government time before the Summer Recess. I cannot give him a precise date, but we will certainly do that.

Dr. King: Is the Leader of the House aware that there are two Motions on the Order Paper, widely signed by hon. Members, one dealing with Service pensioners and the other dealing with public service pensioners? Can we take it that his statement made this afternon, that he expects to make a statement on Service pensions, covers the subject of the second Motion on the public service pensioners? If not, will he consider whether we can have a debate on these two Motions before we go into the Recess?

[That this House, recognising the hardship suffered by retired officers, pensioned other ranks and widows of the armed services, especially those who are old, whose retired pay and pensions cannot be debated under Pensions (Increase) Bills and bear no relation to

current awards, urges Her Majesty's Government immediately to improve the pensions of widows bereaved before 4th November, 1958, and to examine the conditions peculiar to all armed service pensioners, and, as soon as economic circumstances permit, to introduce special provisions to improve their retired pay and pensions.]

[That this House, recognising the hardships of public service pensioners and especially of older public service pensioners, whose pensions bear no relation to similar pensions now obtaining in the public service, urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce, as soon as economic circumstances permit, a new Pensions (Increase) Bill to raise the incomes of such pensioners.]

Mr. Macleod: Frankly, I think that I have already been indiscreet enough on this business. I have given a clear indication that there will be a statement on this matter. I have, however, said earlier that there is a known and acknowledged link between the Services position and the public service pensioners, so that the hon. Member can take it that what I have said will cover them.

Mr. Gaitskell: To help us to decide whether we should take this as a possible Supply day subject, could the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea when the statement is likely to be made and be a little more explicit about the intention to cover the public service pensioners as well?

Mr. Macleod: It will be within, I should have thought, two weeks from now. I could not commit myself to a particular day, but it will be about that time. I think that it will cover the position to which the Leader of the Opposition refers.

Mr. C. Pannel: l: As the Leader of the House is apparently not able to make a statement today, can we expect a statement next week on the wider terms of reference for Mr. Speaker's Committee on Accommodation?

Mr. Macleod: As the hon. Gentleman knows, such a statement will be made by Mr. Speaker, but I think I may say that the terms of it, are, in fact, agreed.

Mr. Speaker: May I say now that I have it in mind to make it tomorrow morning? That seems to be the nearest and most sensible moment, in order not to oblige anybody to be here, as it is an agreed matter.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Can the Leader of the House find time before the Summer Recess for a debate on the Government's attitude to the United Nations, and, in the meantime, advise his hon. Friends and other hon. Members to attend a meeting to be attended by the Secretary-General of the United Nations upstairs this afternoon at 4.15?

BILL PRESENTED

UGANDA INDEPENDENCE

Bill to make provisions for, and in connection with, the attainment by Uganda of fully responsible status within the Commonwealth, presented by Mr. Maudling; supported by Mr. Sandys and Mr. Iain Macleod; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 130.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[22ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — ARMY ESTIMATES, 1962–63

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £30, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for the following services connected with the British Army of the Rhine, namely:

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1962–63





£


Vote 3 (War Office)
…
…
10


Vote 5 (Movements)
…
…
10


Vote 6 (Supplies, etc.)
…
…
10





£30

Orders of the Day — BRITISH ARMY OF THE RHINE

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The Opposition have arranged this debate because there is considerable anxiety among the public, including the parents of the men concerned, about conditions in the Rhine Army. When such a situation arises Parliament should lose no time in discussing the matter.
I hope that one result of today's debate will be to bring a rather better proportion into the whole question. Some events have been disturbing, and there is no good in concealing that. They suggest rather deeper-lying causes than those for which some people have been looking. To my mind, the chief of these rather disturbing events were the grave charges and very severe sentences in connection with the incidents at Hilden Camp and the court-martial of last March. This suggests that there are deeper-lying causes of the trouble, but I cannot say more about that, since the matter is sub judice.
Some of the public concern is exaggerated, and this has caused resentment among a number of soldiers in the


Rhine Army, as all those hon. Members who have received letters from them know. I want to quote one that I received from a Regular soldier, because this voice of the Rhine Army should be heard as well as the other voice. He says:
I think that more news coverage should be given to everyday life and events in Germany and so give the public a chance to learn the true facts about how the average soldier lives in Germany. We should like our people in Britain to know that, on the whole, we live decent, respectable lives and do not divide our time between maiming the local population with beer bottles and rescuing them from flood disasters.
But if concern has been exaggerated, the Secretary of State himself is not without blame. I am sorry to say this, because in many ways he has been a good Secretary of State. He has got round the Army a great deal, and I am glad that he is going off fairly soon to see the Rhine Army. None the less, in recent weeks he has shown himself a little inclined to get flurried under pressure, and to take hasty and ill-considered actions which have not allayed but have rather increased public alarm.
There are various examples of this, but the chief one was the sudden imposition of the midnight curfew which he announced on 26th June. I do not say that it is wrong to have such a curfew. I am not sure that it was ever right to have all night passes—and other N.A.T.O. forces have a curfew of this kind. But if this change was to have been made it should have been made calmly and normally, and not as an isolated, precipitate action announced to us in a dramatic statement in the House of Commons. This is not the way of doing this sort of thing. This created the impression that something was so badly wrong that rather desperate immediate remedies had to be taken, to which the maximum publicity had to be given.
The measure announced by the Secretary of State seems to have been particularly inept and ill-thought-out. He said that this was not a punishment, and that it was only to protect our troops. It certainly looked like a punishment. It was aimed only at the Army and, in the Army, only at unmarried private soldiers. Why do only unmarried private soldiers need protection? Why do not married private soldiers need it, or N.C.O.s or officers, or indeed, the Royal

Air Force? This was the main ground on which the right hon. Gentleman rested the decision which he suddenly announced.
The distinction between the Army and the Royal Air Force in this respect seems to border on the ludicrous. There is at least one quarter which is shared by airmen and soldiers. They will be in the same cafés, and as midnight approaches the unmarried private soldiers will have to leave, whereas everyone else will stay. This will lead to mockery. It is the sort of thing that produces anger and resentment.
My chief objection to the way in which the Secretary of State acted was that ha made it look as if the Army as a whole was in the wrong. This he should not have done. He should stand up for the good name and repute of the Army—correcting things that are wrong, but not getting flurried under a little pressure—even if he thought that it was an unfair attack. He should not have got flurried and tried to protect himself against the attack by taking actions which did not do good to the repute of the Army.
However, I am glad that he is to visit the Rhine Army. I hope that he will refrain from theatrical gestures when he is there, and will look closely at a number of problems which required to be looked at in that Army, some of which I will now draw to his attention.
Some of the things which he should look at are cases where Government action has had a direct effect upon morale—although I do not want to overplay their influence. If one goes round the Rhine Army, as many hon. Members on both sides of the House have done, and as I did not long ago, one gets the impression that there is a feeling among the troops that the Secretary of State has broken a number of pledges. Even though not all of them may be serious, this has had a bad effect, and has caused much disgruntlement.
For instance, it is widely believed in the Rhine Army that a promise was made that new uniforms would be provided two years ago, but the men are still going about in the old battle-dress. They are less well dressed than either the United States or the German soldiers. The feeling that they have been promised something and that nothing has


materialised has caused a certain amount of disgruntlement and annoyance.
Nor should the Secretary of State underrate the effects of the Government's broken promise about pay, and the deferment of half the promised increase of pay which the Government were contracted to make. It may be that the Army has officially welcomed this, but that is not the impression one gets if one goes around among the soldiers themselves. This has had a greater effect than Ministers have admitted.
One or two other factors which affect morale are also under Government control, and the Secretary of State should look into them. One is the effect of the serious undermanning of units in Germany. It is well known that if units are badly undermanned it has an effect on morale, for a lot of different reasons. I do not believe that one unit in Germany is up to the ordinary establishment of units in peacetime, let alone a 100 per cent. establishment. Some are very much below establishment. This will become worse when National Service ends. It has a depressing effect on the Army in Germany, as does the very slow delivery of new equipment coming through. These are matters for which the Government are responsible, and which have contributed to some depression of morale and spirits in the Army.
But there is a fundamental matter which the Government and the Secretary of State must look into and which the Government have neglected. They must bear the main blame for this. The basic problem arises from the fact that never before in all our history have we had a large peace-time Army in a foreign country for which we have no political responsibility. This is something new. It creates problems which the Government have been very tardy in grasping and tackling. Two sets of problems arise which are clearly related. One is the question of relations with the German population. The other is the question of the internal organisation and management of such an Army.
The question of relations with the German population raises very big matters and I want to make only two comments on the subject. One is that it is very easy to overplay the tension. The German national Press has been

far less excited about these incidents than have our own Press and it has sometimes expressed amazement that our Press has been so excited about them. The other point I want to make is this: any question of relations with a population around an Army is a two-sided matter. It depends on the Germans, too. This becomes perfectly clear if we contrast and compare the general position in West Berlin with the position in West Germany. There are other factors, but one of the factors which make the situation in West Berlin so much better than in West Germany relates to the attitude of the people in the two places. This must be clearly seen and understood.
There is one other matter which is two-sided. It is the question of getting a proper understanding among our own troops and among the Germans of the real purpose of the Rhine Army. The German authorities certainly ought to do more to help spread around the idea that B.A.O.R. is just as much there for the defence of Germany as the Berlin garrison is there for the defence of Berlin. They have not done this. They have rather washed their hands of it. The Government should bring this closely to their attention and also the things which should be done and have not been done in the encouragement of Anglo-German contacts and of committees, which must be two-sided. They cannot spring solely from us, and the German authorities are not blameless in these matters.
But we, too, have duties. Hon. Members who have been there find that ordinary men in the Army have very little idea why they are in Germany. It is easy to say, and there is truth in it, that this should be dealt with by Army education. More could be done, but Army education cannot do anything unless policy is considered and this is a matter which raises the need for clarity in Government statements. I hope that the Minister will say something clearly for the guidance of the Army in this educational work. We must get away from the relics of the idea that this is an Army of occupation. This idea hangs around not only in the minds of our own men, but in the minds of the German public as well. This must be got rid of. It needs a big effort to get rid of it and to make clear that our Army is there as part of Western defence.


We must also get away from the idea that the Army is there as a sort of political gesture and has no real military purpose, because if trouble started nuclear weapons would be fired at once and the whole thing would end in a few minutes. This idea gets around. It is attacked in many quarters in the Rhine Army, but it has created cynicism among young officers which spreads through to the men.
The nub of the question which we ought to tackle today is the question of the internal organisation and management of this kind of peace-time Army in a foreign country. Problems arise here from two causes which I do not think, the Government have properly tackled. One cause is that Germany is treated as a home station. This may be administratively sensible—I am not sure about that—but it is psychologically wrong because the Army is in a foreign country and its whole social environment is wholly different from the environment at home. This sort of betwixt and between position in which the Rhine Army finds itself must have an effect. That is the reason why there is a greater court-martial rate in the Rhine Army than at home or at proper overseas stations which are treated as overseas stations.
The second cause of the problem, and it goes together with the fact that this is treated as a home station, is that this is very largely a married Army. This raises special complications and difficulties for an Army in the position in which the Rhine Army is situated. This fact presents a great challenge to the Army in two ways. One is that it has immense civil responsibilities which armies in the past have not had. It is not generally realised that there are as many wives and children in the Rhine Army as there are men. The Army has to look after about 100,000 people. It has to discharge, besides the normal military duties, the civil duties of the local authority of quite a fair-sized town.
I am not saying that nothing has been done. I was much impressed by much that I saw. The schools are good and so is the organisation of school buses. For some reason, which I have never understood, the flats, in outlandish military language, are called multiple hirings. These fiats are going up fairly

fast. There are sports facilities and cinemas. They are not bad, though neither are wholly adequate. One thing which impressed me very much was the trooping arrangements from Gutersloh to Gatwick. I took the trouble to travel by this route when coming home and I was very impressed by the whole organisation and the great difference it makes to men coming home cheaply and getting their friends out there.
There are, however, great shortages. There are shortages still of married quarters due, to some extent I admit, to delays by the Germans in giving planning permission. I had the impression, however, that Her Majesty's Government were very slow off the mark in building married quarters. I was also under the impression that the gravest shortage in married quarters concerns married privates and that far greater progress has been made in providing married quarters accommodation for N.C.O.s and officers. This is not very good for morale.
Together with the fact that this is treated as a home based Army in a foreign country and is very largely a married Army, there is a second challenge to the Army which I think has not been met at all and is the basic cause of the malaise in the Army. This is the gap which has been allowed to open between the married and the unmarried, and the unmarried are primarily private soldiers in barracks.
Some barracks are good and some are very bad. The Elizabeth barracks at Minden, where the Cameronians are quartered, are amongst the worst of the lot. They are very like a prison to look at. Some priority should be given to the building of new barracks, and not only to married quarters. This should be done not only for social reasons, but also for military reasons. One of the things which worried me was the way we are tied to barracks which are deployed in the wrong way. When new barracks are built the Army will be able to put them where it wants them from the point of view of being properly deployed for its possible military tasks.
But as regards unmarried private soldiers in barracks it would not be right to say that the main problem arises from


bad buildings. It arises from boredom —simple boredom. This is a basic problem in the Rhine Army, particularly for unmarried privates. I went into this very carefully. The reason for it is that we have an Army that keeps office hours in Germany. Let me say that I was very impressed with the officers on duty. I thought that they were absolutely first-class. I was very impressed by the n.c.os. I doubt that we have had a better batch of N.C.O.s in the Army. I want to say this clearly because I do not want to attack the men.
The root problem which the Government must tackle is the gap between the married and unmarried in barracks. Every day at five o'clock one sees officers and married N.C.O.s leaving the barracks. They leave the unmarried men behind in the barracks, particularly at the weekend when they leave at about five o'clock on Friday and come back on Monday morning. This is all right. They have got families. They have got occupations, cars and ways of amusing and entertaining themselves, and this is perfectly right. The Army should have all this. But they leave behind in barracks private soldiers with nothing or very little to do.
This is perfectly all right at home in Britain. Private soldiers in Britain are in their own habitat. They have lots of things to do. They speak the language of the country. They mix with people and go to "pubs". To leave soldiers on their own during the weekend is all right in this country, but it is no good in Germany. In fact, it is very dangerous. True, there are cinemas, and, although they are not everywhere, they are well organised; there are changes of programmes, and so forth. There is tombola. But these things pall with the men.
Young men are left in barracks with nobody very much responsible for them. It should be remembered that, in effect, for them there is no television, because all the television is in German. They can receive it, but they cannot understand it. Therefore, all that is available at home is lacking out there. There is nothing much for the soldiers to do except to go drinking in the cafés. Some people say that cheap drink is the cause of the trouble. I do not believe it is. I

think it is cheap drink plus boredom that is the cause of the trouble. Boredom drives a man to drink and makes the effect of the drink worse. Therefore, I say it is the boredom and not the cheap drink which is the real cause of this trouble.
What the Secretary of State has to consider here is the need for officers and N.C.O.s to accept a greater responsibility for their men during these hours of neglect, particularly during the week-ends which, for unmarried private soldiers in the Rhine Army, are one long yawn. This is something that matters to the Army, and responsibility must be taken. Initiative must be taken for organising voluntary activities of all kinds. I am not saying that it is not done at all. It is done in some cases, but not in others. Where it is done things go very well, but where it is not done a lot of trouble occurs.
It is particularly necessary that officers and N.C.O.s should take this responsibility at this moment, for two reasons. One reason is that large numbers of new young recruits are going out there. They are having their first experience of the Army and of a foreign country, and they can easily become rather bewildered in these circumstances. There is a special need for this to be done at this time of changing over to a Regular Army, with these youngsters going out there. Secondly, there is a special duty on officers to do this whilst the equipment and the facilities for the men are still rather seriously lacking.
One reason why the men cannot properly occupy and amuse themselves is very often that the facilities are lacking and what facilities exist pall very much. What are needed are garrison facilities away from the camp. Off duty, men want to leave the camp. They want to go into the garrison town. Of course, the facilities provided must be fitted to the men. Not every man wants a hobby and uplift. He wants all sorts of other things which the Government can better provide. A good central N.A.A.F.I. club in Minden would do a lot to reduce the troubles there. There is a lot to be said for decent, ordinary British-type "pubs". If N.A.A.F.I. or some such body cannot provide these, I do not doubt that the brewers would. I do not see why this suggestion should not be considered.
There should be live entertainment. I do not believe that there is any live entertainment from home. It would make a lot of difference if there were live entertainment from home, instead of soldiers always having to go to the cinemas. We should look into the possibilities of either the B.B.C. or the Army providing some sort of television programmes, on closed circuit, or in whatever other way it can be done. These are a few suggestions that I wish to put to the Government. Hon. Friends of mine who have been in Germany more recently than myself to see the Rhine Army will, no doubt, make a number of other suggestions.
I should like to sum up. I have spoken briefly because many hon. Members want to speak in the debate. I would say that the incidents and discipline have been considerably exaggerated, but some grave things have happened that we cannot ignore and which are symptomatic of a more deep-rooted malaise in the Army. We are very critical of the Government for not grasping and tackling the specific nature of the problems of an Army for which they are responsible, an Army which is in a new situation and as to which there is now a lot of experience of why certain troubles and difficulties arise. They have not tackled this problem. They have not made really clear why the Army is there, or considered what sort of management is needed for this sort of Army in this extremely difficult circumstance, and I must say that we are very critical of the Secretary of State himself. He is the Minister mainly responsible for all this, except, of course, the Royal Air Force.

Mr. James Dance (Bromsgrove): I agree with very much of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I think that there is one point that he has overlooked. There are good and bad units. I believe that it is the unit itself which has the marked effect. I think that it is a question not of any Government, but of the unit and the commanding officer of that unit. The better the unit, the less trouble there is. Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree?

Mr. Gordon Walker: I agree that there are good and bad units and that it turns mostly on the officers. There

are only good and bad officers, not good and bad units. None the less, I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that we have to take into account also the whole context of where an Army is and its circumstances, and that for this context the Government are responsible. At any particular moment the relations will be better or worse according to the nature of the unit. But the Army as a whole has a problem, and the Rhine Army has a special problem that has never existed before. The Government are responsible for facing that problem and for helping the units to cope with it, and the Government have failed, on the whole, to discharge that responsibility.
The Secretary of State is mainly responsible for this. I think that he has been guilty of errors of judgment, of flinching a little under pressure, and of rushing into precipitate actions which have given the impression, at any rate, that he was for the moment putting his own immediate political difficulties ahead of the thing for which he is primarily responsible, namely, the good repute of the Army.

4.16 p.m.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I shall be very brief. I want only to deal with the wider issues that concern me, and, gas the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and the Committee know, my night hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War will wind up on the matters of detail Which concern B.A.O.R.
First, I should like to deal with the question of pay, because this is entirely my responsibility. As it is a tri-Service matter, it falls entirely to me. I do not consider for a moment that this is a serious element in a failure in morale in B.A.O.R. The facts are that the Grigg Committee awarded 14½ per cent. in the most favourable circumstances to the private soldier. Without wishing to take any credit to myself in any way, I do not think that they did too badly in the present context of wage restraint to get 14½ per cent., paid in two equal instalments. I do not think that the question of pay is at issue.
However, I am not in any sense trying to minimise this problem. The right hon. Gentleman put this part of his argument perfectly fairly when he said


that it is a problem of an Army in a foreign country. I think that the first thing that the British Army in Germany is entitled to is a reasonable measure of support. The letter that the right hon. Gentleman read out set out the position very clearly. I should like to start by making it plain that from the Government's point of view the overwhelming majority of officers and men in the British Army of the Rhine are doing a first-class job and are bearing a very heavy responsibility. This is the first thing I want to deal with, because this is defence policy. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman raised it, and I agree with him.
Perhaps we do not say often enough that the Rhine Army is not in Germany merely as a garrison Army. It is there for one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is to fight for the integrity of N.A.T.O. Europe if it were so called on to do. This is its job. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, because he has just visited this area, it is a vital part of the N.A.T.O. effort on this critical Central European front. It is there to maintain peace and to defend the alliance. I cannot think of a more honourable or more important job that an Army could do.
Strangely enough, this is very well understood by the West German people and their Government—perhaps naturally, as they are nearer to the front line than we are. Perhaps this is why, on the whole, opinion in West Germany has found it very difficult to understand what a lot of the fuss has been about. However, be that as it may, all I say is that the British Government have had no representations of any kind from any German authorities about the behaviour of British forces. None at all. We do not want to get into arguments about the Press, but I think it only fair to the Press Ito say that it has, after all, reported many very good examples of very good relations between the British forces in Germany and their German opposite numbers.
Some incidents must occur. It would be not only surprising but almost miraculous if they did not. Why? What we are trying to do is to keep more than 51,000 tough, highly trained fighting men in Germany. They are kept at a very high state of combat readiness. I do

not think that the right hon. Gentleman gave quite enough weight to this in relation to some of the boredom, if he likes to call it that, and some of the difficulties under which these men have to live. Under the orders of the Supreme Allied Commander Europe they are required to be at a very high state of combat readiness.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I did not mention everything, but it struck me that where there was more training there was better morale and that it is not because the troops have to do a lot of training that morale is bad. There are not proper facilities.

Mr. Watkinson: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has raised the matter, because it enables me to be a little more clear.
I agree that, if the men are out on training, they are happy; but the problem is that one cannot keep all of them on training all the time. When an Army is standing by, week after week, knowing that it may be called upon at very short notice to do a very responsible job —I shall talk about that in a minute— there is bound to be a certain amount of friction. I am not minimising the problem. I am merely trying to set out the broad picture of what these men have to face.
I shall not go into the details of cases. I do not seek to minimise them, nor does my right hon. Friend. External cases, so to speak, of difficulty with the Germans are not great in number, All I say about the internal level of convictions, and so on, is that it compares very favourably with the crime statistics in Britain.

Mr. E. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman emphasise that a little? One would suppose that there was no trouble of any sort at garrison towns in the United Kingdom. Does he recall what happened at a camp in Shrewsbury? Are there no courts-martial in this country? What is all the fuss about?

Mr. Watkinson: The right hon. Gentleman, as a former Minister of Defence, takes the kind of broad view which, I hope, I am trying to take. If it is set in a broad context, he is perfectly right. I was taking it a little


further and saying that, if one compares the level of crime, to call it that, in the Rhine Army with the police statistics in this country, the comparison is still not unfavourable to Rhine Army.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: This is important, and I feel that the right hon. Gentleman is passing over it much too lightly. He uses such expressions as "if one compares". I think that the result of any comparison would be very good, but why not give us the comparison? It would put the case in favour of Rhine Army. How many of these courts-martial in Germany would never have been held had the crimes been committed in this country because the cases would have gone to the civilian courts?

Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. My right hon. Friend will he giving some of the statistics. I wish to be brief, because I know that many lion. Members want to sneak, and I wish to deal with the two main points which the right hon. Member for Smethwick raised. both of which fall to me.

Mr. R. T. Paget: It is obviously one of the important points in the debate. If what the right hon. Gentleman says is correct, and there is nothing wrong with Rhine Army as compared with the Army in Britain, why suddenly impose a curfew on private soldiers at this time and give the impression to the whole of Rhine Army that they have been let down because Ministers have not the "guts" to face the Press?

Mr. Watkinson: That is not the case at all. My view about the curfew—I very strongly support the action which my right hon. Friend took—is that it was high time that we brought the Rhine Army into line with the general custom in Europe. During the dangerous hours after midnight, when odd people are to be found wandering about the place looking for trouble, the only ones exposed to that sort of problem were the ordinary private soldiers in Rhine Army, and this, I think, should have been stopped in their own interest.
The right hon. Gentleman claimed that units being under strength was a factor affecting the morale of the British Army in Germany. The fact is that

B.A.O.R. is not much under its treaty strength at the moment. This is, in part, due to the Army Reserve Act which my right hon. Friend got through the House, with great courage, against the determined opposition of the party opposite.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The right hon. Gentleman refers to its treaty strength. Which treaty?

Mr. Watkinson: Fifty-five thousand.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Which treaty?

Mr. Watkinson: The Western European Union Treaty.

Mr. Paget: That calls for four divisions.

Mr. Watkinson: Not at all. We do not want to get into that argument which has been rehearsed in the House time after time. Hon. Members on the back benches opposite who have studied these things, as, I imagine, right hon. and hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite have, know perfectly well what our position is under the W.E.U. Treaty.
Perhaps I can take comfort from the fact that this was all discussed at the recent Paris conference of Western European Union. I said perfectly plainly what we were prepared to do— and what we were not prepared to do —which was that we would come up to our present treaty obligation of 55,000 men as soon as we could. Those hon. Members from both sides of the House who were present will, I think, agree that this was received very favourably by W.E.U.
The claim that B.A.O.R. is to some extent seriously under strength or seriously deficient in equipment just does not hold water. I have never been able to understand, and I do not understand today, how the Opposition could square their support for N.A.T.O.—which, I am sure, is genuine—with their unremitting opposition to the Army Reserve Act which sought to help N.A.T.O. at a time of crisis over the Berlin situation.
B.A.O.R. is ready and well equipped to fight. I shall now say a little more about its purpose in this sphere. I agree with the right hon. Member for Smeth-wick that this is not sufficiently known. Everybody understands what our


soldiers are doing in West Berlin. Everybody understands that they are doing a wonderful job under great tension. What people do not understand is that a similar responsibility rests on the whole of Rhine Army. The Berlin situation at present, which the House is to discuss later, is always delicate. It may be quiescent at the moment but it might at any moment again become critical.
I make quite plain that, if this were to happen, it is the British troops in West Germany who would be in the forefront of any measures which might have to be taken to safeguard our interests and those of N.A.T.O. This is the burden resting on them. This is the sort of state of readiness they have to maintain. With this continuing feeling of burden and tension, it is very understandable if they kick over the traces occasionally.
Rhine Army is not only facing this terrific challenge and bearing a great burden for us all in this country, but it is in the most difficult phase of its change-over from a conscript to a Regular force. When this change-over is complete, we shall have a far more efficient and effective Army. During the change-over period, however, there are special difficulties and strains on officers and men as units change gradually from the concept of a conscript force, where one does tend to have a sort of "five o'clock office hours" approach, to the concept of a Regular Army, where one has the family and team spirit very much more. It is because of this that, naturally, I have looked with some anxiety at the criticisms of the British Army of the Rhine which have been bandied about. This is why I have thought it right to set out briefly but, I hope, plainly what its duty is—and I can think of no more important one.
The troops of Rhine Army are not only deserving of but are entitled to the support of the British people at home for the job they are doing. They are not greatly under strength or under-equipped. They stand ready to defend a key sector of the N.A.T.O. front. In their relations with the German people and in their record of internal discipline and behaviour, they compare favour-

ably, in my view, with other armies or, indeed, with anything in our civilian life here in Britain.
I do not for a moment say that the Opposition were wrong to raise this matter. I am very glad that they have, because I hope that the sense of the debate in the House will be—as I know the right hon. Gentleman feels and as I feel passionately—that these men are doing a first-class job.
They have their problems and difficulties. I am not trying to minimise them. Nor will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who will have a lot to say about what we hope to do to make life easier for them. But do not let us forget their main purpose, which is to fight for N.A.T.O., to preserve the peace, and to stand ready day in and day out to do that. It is not an easy task and I hope that the House will recognise that as the debate proceeds.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: It is always pleasant to find the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence coming to the House of Commons, particularly since in a previous debate some of my hon. Friends doubted his veracity. Of course, I did not support that view. However, my charge against him is much more devastating: it is that he obviously believes every word that he says.
The right hon. Gentleman let the cat out of the bag again this afternoon. He said that the decision taken by the Secretary of State for War about the curfew was with his approval, as if the Secretary of State for War and the Minister of Defence are responsible for the discipline of the Rhine Army. This is an entirely new doctrine. I should have thought that the person responsible for the discipline of the Rhine Army was the Army commander and that, if at any stage it became clear that the Army commander was failing in his duty, that was a matter for the Army Council. Surely it is a completely new departure for Ministers to come to the House of Commons and to tell us, with the least consciousness of what they are saying, that they are responsible for disciplinary measures of this kind.

Mr. Watkinson: It was made clear in the Secretary of State's announcement, which I know the hon. Gentleman read


with the care and attention which he pays to all these matters, that this was General Cassels' recommendation. It is perfectly right that my right hon. Friend and I should say in the House that we strongly support this action because we are responsible to the House for it.

Mr. Wigg: I let the right hon. Gentleman get away with that and regard it as just one of those Freudian slips, but it is not the first time that this has happened. When General Cowley gave his lecture and let the cat out of the bag about the Government's nuclear policy, it was the right hon. Gentleman who came to the House and said, "We shall see that this never happens again", as if he were responsible for what General Cowley says and not the clearance given by the Secretary of State for War.
The truth is that neither the country nor the Government have made up their minds about what the standard of discipline and comfort should be. We could handle the problem like the Americans. They take their G.I.s into the armed forces and try to recreate in the American Army the conditions which the young American man finds at home. They give him the same sort of food that he has at home on Sundays and present live shows regardless of expense. A definite drive is made to recreate home conditions in off-duty time.
We have never done that in this country. In the latter stages of the war, the policy decision taken on morale, particularly in those areas where boredom was likely, was that men should live under Service conditions but should be given leave as often as possible to enable them to go home. Broadly speaking, I think that that was right. I think that the Government would fail if they took the line advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and imagined that they would solve this problem by introducing the British "pub" into the Rhine Army.
The fact is that these men are living in a foreign country. I may be forgiven, despite my grey hairs, one or two reminiscences, because I speak with some degree of authority. I served in the First Rhine Army and with the occupation force in Turkey. Four of my best years were spent in Bagdad. We had no amenities, not even an electric fan, but

we did not suffer from boredom, and we should have resented it if our officers and N.C.O.s came round and tucked us up and kissed us good night.
The right hon. Gentleman is right when he says that the Rhine Army does as important a job as any force in the world, and I think that it does it extremely well. If any responsibility rests anywhere, it is not on the young men serving in the Rhine Army, and not on the Army commander. The responsibility rests with the Government and that is what I intend to try and prove. I hope that it has been established beyond a shadow of doubt that neither the Secretary of State for War nor the Minister of Defence are responsible for the discipline of the troops. They are not commanders sitting in the House of Commons. That responsibility rests with the commander on the spot.
Let us get this B.A.O.R. problem into focus. It started with the row at Hilden. The first charge made against the Secretary of State was that there had been secrecy and that an attempt had been made to hush this matter up. On the Friday before the Recess, the Secretary of State made a statement in the House on which I asked him two or three supplementary questions. The first question was obvious. These men had been under close arrest since the end of January and the trial was not convened until 21st May. What had happened to these men? Were they under close arrest? Could they communicate with their families and M.P.s? Could they make preparations for their defence? The Secretary of State's answer was "Yes".
The 64,000 dollar question was whether an application had been made for the trial to be held in camera, and we were told that no application had been made. Although the Secretary of State may be Charged with wanting to "put it across the Press", he told the truth when he said that the Press had missed a trick. It had missed a trick. Of that there was not a shadow of doubt. No charge rests with the Secretary of State nor with the Army for what happened at Hilden. No charge rests with them in respect of what happened with the Cameronians at Minden.
Minden is a particularly difficult station. The Cameronians have acquired a very high reputation over the


years. I always thought that they were, to use an Army expression, rather a bible-punching lot. They were always regarded as stern covenanters. If that had been said about the H.L.I., it would have been a different matter.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is not my hon. Friend thinking of the Cameronians of the seventeenth century?

Mr. Wigg: When one visits or talks about certain regiments, one thinks of their past history. Perhaps it is not true, but I always thought of the Cameronians as being a God-fearing regiment. It may be that that applies only to the Cameronians of the seventeenth century, but that was the impression in my mind. When I think of the H.L.I., I think of someone getting hold of the ball and banging it into the crowd.
I join issue with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and with the Prime Minister on this matter, and the Prime Minister really ought to know better. He said that he had great sympathy with what my hon. and learned Friend said in the House, which shows that the Prime Minister has a marked predilection for fiction against fact, because it is not true that before the war Regular troops behaved in this way as a matter of course.
I have looked up the statistics and searched my memory and consulted other people on this point. I can remember one major bust up". That concerned the Army reservists at Aldershot in 1920. I remember it because of two things. First, I had had an operation the previous day for appendicitis and the hospital was so full that these fellows were carried in on stretchers, Secondly, I had backed the winner of the 1,000 Guineas, but the orderly with whom I had put on the money was under arrest, and I was much more concerned about my winnings than about his well-being. These facts are indelibly impressed on my mind.
Apart from that, I deny that the records show that Regular troops behave as the Prime Minister would like to think. It is clear that the Minister of Defence has some sympathy with what he calls "kicking over the traces". I am an ex-Regular soldier, and I have

more regard for their reputation than that. I regard what has been said about them as an affront. Regular troops of high quality do not behave in this way, not because of their officers, but because they are held under control by their N.C.O.s. This is one of the things that may have gone wrong and, if so, time, let us hope, will put it right.
It may be that those in the sergeants' messes in the Army as a whole are a bit too young. A certain amount of authority comes, not only from the stripes on a chap's arm, from the crowns on his sleeve or from the pips on his shoulder, but from his long service and good conduct medals and perhaps even from his grey hairs. If the right hon. Gentleman will undergo the discipline of reading what was said in the 1956 debate when the Government were defending themselves against the charge that they should get rid of conscription, that was the defence put forward by the then Minister of Defence and by the present Leader of the House. It could not be done because it would diminish the quality of the N.C.O.s.
Let me deal with another aspect of the problem which has been hardly mentioned today, namely, that the troubles in the Rhine Army came about because of resentment by National Service men against the Government's proposal that they should serve an additional six months. I have taken the trouble to compare courts-martial convictions as with the strengths and this is what 1 find. In 1960, the Rhine Army had a total strength of just over 48,000. Of these 59 per cent. were Regulars, who accounted for 79 per cent. of the courts-martial. In 1961, 71 per cent. of the strength were Regulars, who had 87 per cent. of the courts-martial. For 1962, I give the comparison between the three stations which are comparable for the reason that a man who commits an offence is charged before a military court and not before the civil court. In the first quarter of 1962, the Rhine Army had an 81 per cent. Regular strength who had 94 per cent. of the courts-martial. In Hong Kong, 87 per cent. of the strength were Regulars, who had 100 per cent. of the courts-martial; and in Singapore, the 92 per cent. who were Regulars accounted for 100 per cent. of the courts-martial.
Therefore, looking over the last three years, one sees beyond any shadow of doubt that the problem—it is not a great one, although the position is not as good as it was pre-war by a long way—is a problem fundamentally of the Regular Army and the quality of the Regular Army.
My next point is this. This is something that blew up at Hilden and then re-enacted itself at Minden. If it is thought that the Rhine Army is at fault, I should point out that the unrest is not something new. I spoke last year in the debate on the Address in reply to the Queen's Speech. Nobody took much notice of what I said, but I do not grumble at that. I raised the question of what had happened with the 17th Training Regiment, R.A., at Oswestry, where 50 men went down to the town and tried to smash up the place. Most of them got a good hiding for their trouble. When 29 were brought before the court, however, 14 of them had civil convictions. One man had 13 civil convictions, including a Charge of killing, and the commanding officer apologised to the court. I have dug out the copy of the Oswestry paper which I got at the time. The commanding officer said that he could not for the life of him understand how those men had got into the Army. Only one of them had declared that he had a civil conviction.
That sort of thing is happening on a wider scale. I want to be very careful at this point, because the Secretary of State for War acts in a judicial capacity in connection with some of the men who have been charged. Petitions have been made to him and they go to the Army Council and, perhaps, to the Court of Appeal. Some of these fellows in the Rhine Army also have records. This is nothing new. The very able correspondent of The Times on 13th March, 1961, wrote an article on the high rejection rate of recruits and he pointed out that 20 per cent. of the recruits going into the Infantry Depot at Winchester were in selection group 5 —that is to say, they were illiterate.
I have done a little homework in this matter and perhaps I can help the Committee. The Army is, as inevitably it must be, a projection of society as a whole. It ought to be able to attract

some of the higher skills and intelligences to which a modern army, depending as it does on intricate equipment, must have access. The Americans faced up to this problem. If hon. Members opposite consult their hon. Friend the Member for Malden (Mr. B. Harrison), he will tell them about a very expert American report on this subject. The hon. Member went to America and saw how the Americans handle this problem.
I have looked at the recruiting figures for a corps for the five months of this year and they total 447. When I break them down as against the national S.G. rate, I find that the corps got 15 out of 447 S.G.ls against the national average of 43. In other words, the corps got less than half the national average. Not one could be surprised about that, because this grading includes many people who go to universities or who will enter the professions. Therefore, to get 15 is fortunate, because they are potential officers and will do well. When it comes to S.G.2, S.G.3+ and S.G.3—, the Army gets more than its share. It does better than the civilian average and gets 106 against 90, 107 as against 90, 114 against 90 and 64 as against 90.
The price that has to be paid—and the Army pays it—for the Government's decision to have an Army of 165.000 men is that the Army has to take any S.G.4 or S.G.5 on which it can lay its hand. Therefore, on that account, when 143 men go forward in their educational test for their Army certificate of education Class 3, only 13 pass. This produces an enormous problem, and a very costly one, of training these men to be of some use.
If one looks at the training problem in the Army to see whether it has been handled properly, there is only one place to go and that is to the Brigade of Guards. The Guards depot is tough. It is efficient. It is also humane and it is fair. I would sooner be tried by a Guards officer than by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), because he would not be emotional in his approach. I have no reason to pay lip service; I am trying to speak the truth.
As part of its training programme a year ago, the Guards depot had a "do". A note on the little programme that was


issued to people said that 500 recruits to the Brigade of Guards were undergoing training in the depot and that a staff of 500 were employed to instruct and administer them. That is to say, the ratio was one for one. One of the things that we have been told by both Front Benches is that if we get rid of National Service, we will get rid of a vast training machine.
In its attempt to get 165,000 men, and if the Army must take S.G.4s and S.G.5s, if it uses television as it now does to the exclusion of everything else, the result is to turn the Army at home into one vast recruiting machine. Officers are now judged, not in terms of their capacity to train, not in terms of their capacity to lead, but in terms of their capacity to recruit. As long as a man can walk—it does not matter if he wets the bed or has been a delinquent —no matter what he is, as long as he can get about on two feet, in he comes.
There is something else that the Government have done. If hon. Members take the trouble to read the annual reports for the Army, they will find published there the most exhaustive analysis on the reasons for rejection of recruits as between the point of enlistment and the point of confirmation, There was a probationary period—it was not used that way—in which references were taken up. Everything had to be weighed up, including a man's personal behaviour and whether he looked the kind of person who would make a soldier. All these things were looked at and there was a very high rejection rate.
What does one find at the present time? Never mind what the Secretary of State for War tells the House. He does his best to give the House information, but sometimes his conclusions are a little misleading. The truth is this wastage is still running in some arms at over 20 per cent. This is because the standard has been, I will not say deliberately lowered—it does not work that way; honourable men do not do that sort of thing. The drive to get recruits is increased at all costs and the result is that there come into the Army people who are virtually almost untrainable. If hon. Members do not care to accept my word, the report in The Times

gave a careful and cautious analysis of the visit made to the depot at Winchester where 20 per cent. of the men in a crack regiment were S.G.5. That means that they are semi-illiterate. That is all there is to say about it.
There is another factor about the Rhine Army. I was surprised that my right hon. Friend did not mention this. It is important particularly as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned strengths. The size of the Regular Army was fixed not at 165,000 but at 182,000, which was regarded as a minimum figure. It was only accepted by the Army on the condition that the strength of the Rhine Army should be 45,000. It was to be 45,000 out of 182,000. Now it is to be 55,000 out of 165,000. Of course, that cannot be done without straining numbers to the limit and, then, when we have done that it is only to find out, as others have found out in other realms of human activity, that Gresham's Law applies—that the bad drives away the good. That is what makes me so pessimistic. This recruiting drive has so lowered the standard that in 4½ years time from now when the present National Service Act reservists have gone the crisis will come. Then what happens?
I do not wish to detain the Committee very much longer. As I said before, the Army is an important, indeed a vital, part of any society. I was converted to that view long ago. I have looked at what happened in other countries and I am glad that we have been spared their experiences. Their armies have come into politics. Ours, to its undying credit, has kept out of politics. One has to remember that what happened at Dunkirk and in the earlier part in North Africa was not an accident. In my view, military disaster is not something that happens of itself overnight; it comes at the end of a long period of national decline. An army is a microcosm of society as a whole. It is an expression of the vitality of that society and of its discipline. That is the approach to the matter from which I must urge the Secretary of State never to depart. The only way that we can get an army to serve the needs of this country, and, in-deed, of the world at large, is to have one based on a high conception of duty.
I am going to end by again paying a tribute to the Brigade of Guards. I


started on this matter with an absolutely open mind, and I have made a breakdown of the wastage. Taking the same arm of the Service, the Foot Guards and the infantry regiments, the wastage in the Foot Guards is 7·2 per cent., which is the lowest of the lot, against an overall average of 12·3 per cent. The wastage during the first three months—life is tough in the Guards' depot—was 13 per cent. as against a total infantry wastage of 19·4 per cent.
An army based on discipline and a conception of duty and service would, I think, set an example which this country needs. If the Army is failing in its duty, it is not the fault of the Army but of the Government Front Bench.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I agree very much with what the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has said, but I find myself in slight disagreement with his last words. I entirely agree that the Army is a fundamental part of the nation. I think that the hon. Gentleman's pessimism concerning the future of the Army was slightly unjustified when. for the sake of his argument, he chose the finest Regular unit to illustrate what an Army should be. I also think that even if the figures of wastage in the first weeks of men joining up are high, it does not follow that the Army is in a serious position.
Of course, if we have an intensive recruiting campaign it is natural that we attract a number of recruits who are not suitable and who would not otherwise have even thought of joining the Army. The fact that we turn them away is surely not proof that the Regular Army is full of morons. In fact, by doing that we avoid enlisting men who are not suitable to serve. Therefore, I do not think that that argument stands up. On the contrary, the fact that so many are turned away is in itself a proof that the Regular Army is equipped with people of higher intelligence than the average of those who apply to join.
I wish this afternoon briefly to apply myself to one point. I welcome this debate and I congratulate the Opposition in getting the matter debated. In my opinion, the matter started because of a Press campaign against B.A.O.R. I believe that there is no doubt at all that this has taken place. There are sug-

gestions in the Press that the Army had been seeking to conceal the fact that courts-martial were taking place, and there has been a great deal of publicity about all kinds of indiscipline, suggesting that recently matters have become worse in the Army of the Rhine.
As to discipline, I agree with what the hon. Member for Dudley said, that perhaps the quality of N.C.O.s mess these days is not quite what it was. But there is no statistical evidence to suggest that discipline in B.A.O.R. is any worse now than it has been in recent years. I have to get my figures done for me, unlike the hon. Member for Dudley, who does them for himself. I have an Answer from the Secretary of State, which he gave me yesterday, which shows the percentage of those convicted in courts-martial. During the last five years the figure of courts-martial in B.A.O.R. has remained absolutely steady. It is no higher now than it was five years ago. This certainly suggests that discipline is not getting any worse. I believe what was suggested by the leader in The Times of 12th June that those responsible for the recent indiscipline are the men kept back for six months under the Act recently passed, is utterly untrue.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Gentleman may be making one mistake. He talks about convictions, but he will realise that when he says that he is not talking about persons, the point being that a man may be charged with a number of offences.

Mr. Kershaw: The hon. Gentleman corrects me. I may have made a slip. It is the numbers of men, not the convictions recorded, to which I referred. I would mention, in passing, that the units with sometimes the higher crime rate are not necessarily the worst when it comes to action.
The spotlight which has been switched on by the Press has certainly given the impression that B.A.O.R. is a collection of drunkards. This is very bad from the point of view of recruiting—how bad we shall not be able to say until some months have elapsed.
Why has the Press done this? I say that it has done it entirely out of pique in order to cover up its own incompetence. I have been given to understand that the method by which courts-martials have been made known to the


Press was this. Up to ten months ago the Army Press liaison officer was in the habit of ringing up each correspondent to tell him that a court-martial was about to take place. A great deal of time and money must have been spent in doing this. About ten months ago, a change of liaison officer took place. The new one has, I understand, discontinued this system. It is now the practice to post in the British Embassy in Bonn a notice about courts-martial. I notice that the leader in the The Times of 12th June says that these notices were
posted in out of the way places.
How out of the way is the Embassy in Bonn? This is utterly untrue and ought not to have been written.
There was a system whereby Reuters' correspondent in Bonn used to go every two days to look at the notice. I understand that the correspondents were in the habit of lunching together in the Press Club where they got briefed by Reuters' correspondent. Last spring, Reuters' correspondent was posted elsewhere. The newspaper correspondents did not notice that they were not being told about the courts-martial and none of them went to the Embassy to find out why. They missed the news of the Hilden mutiny and the Minden "battle", as they have come to be known, and they tried to blame the Army for their having missed the story.
They had indeed missed a trick and they had not even realised that the tricks were taking place. It is perfectly clear that there has been no attempt made to conceal and the remark in the leader in The Times of 12th June that there should be "no furtive washing of dirty linen" by the Army was utterly unjustified and should never have been written.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: I would like to reassure my hon. Friends who are, naturally, anxious to speak, that my intervention will be of short duration. In my view, this is much-ado-about-nothing. That does not mean that the Opposition have no right to raise an issue of this kind or any other if there is disquiet. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) said, if there is alarm in the country—I do not know that there is, though I have no doubt that in families

where soldiers who, as a result of the recent fracas, were sentenced to long and short-term detention, there might be some despondency—it is only right that the matter should be discussed.
It is not the business of anyone on this side of the House to defend the Government, but I am bound to say that I see no reason why it is necessary to divide the House on an issue of this kind. I could understand it if it was the intention of the Opposition to point out that only yesterday the Secretary of State for War made an announcement in the House of a very alarming character. It was most disquieting. At any rate, if his statement was not made in public in the House it was announced in the OFFICIAL REPORT, namely, that we are expecting to spend the vast sum of £89 million this year on the Rhine Army. That might be something to fight about, but certainly not on an issue of this kind.
I agree that there are some "bad hats" in the Army. There are some "bad hats" in industry and in the universities——

Mr. H. Hynd: And in the Government.

Mr. Shinwell: —and in the Government, as my hon. Friend says, though he is responsible for that observation. I do not vouch for its accuracy.
What sort of people do we want in the Army? Do we want professors and bishops and people of that sort? There is a lot of silly talk about the Cameronians. I know something about the Cameronians from the old days; the old type of Cameronian. I saw them on the Clyde many years ago—usually "under the influence", despite the fact that the pay they were receiving did not justify the expense they were incurring on large consumptions of alcoholic liquor.
It is rather different nowadays. They are paid well, very well indeed, and I am not complaining about that. They are transported to West Germany, where the opportunities and facilities are available for purchasing liquor at very low prices. Most of the men live a somewhat monotonous existence and it is inevitable that they partake of alcoholic refreshment, sometimes in excess. Some of them do so. If they go off the rails,


what is there to worry about, even if occasionally—and I am not justifying this—a private strikes an officer or an N.C.O. which is, of course, a very heinous offence and a gross misdemeanour?
After all, might it not be the sort of thing that happens in industry; that a worker will assault a foreman or a manager if there is resentment about promotion, or for some other reason? What is the situation? A number of men engaged in a fracas. They assaulted Germans. They assaulted each other. It was a perfect Donnybrook and they were sentenced to detention as a result of courts-martial proceedings. There was nothing wrong in that. It was quite constitutional and normal. The only trouble was that the Press got hold of it.
One must be careful when discussing the Press. Obviously, we politicians must be exceedingly careful, because if we furnish the slightest indication that we are criticising the Press, everyone knows what will happen. They will not mention us in their newspapers. That would be not only a blow to our vanity, but it might have the effect, in due course, at the next election that is coming along, of unseating us in our constituencies. Nevertheless, I would say this about the Press. I wish sometimes that they would mind their own business. But we must be reasonable about it. The Press must write about something and must publicise the news. What is news? I am not quite sure that that is grammatical, but my intellectual hon. Friends will correct me if what I have said is wrong.
If soldiers act correctly and conduct themselves with the regular etiquette expected of them, that is not news. If they kick over the traces and a few of them get drunk, spiflicated, blind to the world, and run amok—and if they see a German in the offing and, for some reason or other, not easy to explain, perhaps they dislike the German—who knows What will happen? I said that it was not easy to explain, but is that so? It must be remembered that these soldiers are in a foreign country. They know that their presence is resented. Do not let us be mealy-mouthed about this. There are many Germans who dislike their presence. They know that. If there is a bit of a Donnybrook it is, perhaps, natural in view of these circumstances.
Let me make it clear that I want to defend the British soldier, and not only because I have been associated with the War Office for many years. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who is so expert in these matters, spoke about the standards of the men. I rather gathered that he was speaking not about their physical standards, but about what I might call their mental or intellectual standards. I was Parliamentary and Financial Secretary, War Office, over thirty years ago. I recall having to engage in an investigation into the literary standards of the recruits then corning in and being staggered to discover that 10 per cent. of the recruits who had been enlisted during my period of office had the intellectual standard of Children aged 10. It varied throughout the country. While I do not like to say this, it is true that the best standard came from Scotland. From East Anglia, they were really shocking. I do not know the reason for this and I have no doubt that that has all changed.

Mr. Wigg: I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me if I point out that, as usual, he is excellent on day-to-day things, but his knowledge of history is a bit "wonky". His research as Financial Secretary was concerned not with their selection grouping, which was not introduced until twenty years later, but with their educational attainments. The right hon. Member will admit that the two are quite different.

Mr. Shinwell: That may be, but my hon. Friend knows this as well as I do, because he was my Private Secretary when I was Secretary of State for War. We visited garrison towns in Germany and I poked my nose into various rooms where the occupants were engaged in educational procedures. I might add that I did this in spite of attempts to keep me out. I found the instructors making the most extraordinary mistakes.
For example, I remember one occasion when I was being shown around by a general. I asked what was in one of the rooms, and he said, "Nothing very important. Some young fellows are being taught something". I went into the room and discovered that the lecture was on constitutional matters. Why they were being educated in constitutional matters I could not understand, nor did I ask for an explanation. But there on


the blackboard was written, "Salaries of Ministers. Prime Minister—£10,000. Cabinet Minister—£7,000".
I said to the gentleman who was showing me round, "I did not know that I had been given an increase in salary since leaving the United Kingdom". He replied that he could not understand what I meant, and I then told him that my salary was not £7,000, but only £5,000—though, of course, I had hopes for the future. That is the sort of thing that was being taught, and it struck me as most extraordinary.
I listened with great interest to my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker). He suggested several solutions to the problem. One was to provide more married quarters for private soldiers. How much would this cost? Besides, how long are our troops to be stationed in Germany? Are they to be there for ever? The Germans, too, want accommodation. We have a similar problem in this country, and even though the Germans want more houses it is proposed to build more barracks and use labour to provide more amenities for our men. This sort of thing will not do. We must consider both the cost and the social consequences.
There are other proposed solutions. It has been mentioned in the Press, and I believe in the House, that we ought to provide the British type of public house for our troops in Germany. But the men can drink anywhere. They do not require the British type of public house to indulge in alcohol, and this suggestion is, therefore, just nonsense.
There is, of course, one simple solution—take the men out. To do so would save £89 million. It would cost something to keep them in this country, but certainly not £89 million. This is the best solution, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider it. It is a simple solution. It presents no difficulties. There will be no trouble about providing barracks, nor about providing married quarters or British-type "pubs", because we have everything here. We have all the amenities in this country.
If it is proposed to build barracks, let us build them in this country, because there are here a number of unemployed

people who would be only too glad to be employed on building barracks. For example, we would be only too glad to build a barracks in my constituency and take up some of the unemployment in the area. Do not let us have this silly, pettifogging, piffling stuff about British-type "pubs", more barracks, and so on. That is not the way to solve the problem.
Finally, let us make up our minds to say quite clearly that far too much has been made of these incidents. There has been too much of a hullaballoo. There has been far too much extravagant language and exaggeration. But even if the men do go off the rails, it is our duty to defend them, and that is what I am trying to do.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Clive Bossom: For once, I must agree with at least the beginning of the understanding speech of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). I have visited the British Army of the Rhine on many occasions, both officially and in a private capacity. I have visited my own regiment during the past few years.
I feel that our troops are not entirely at fault. As has been rightly stated by both sides of the House, the British Press has for once overplayed the present situation. If one reads the German Press, one finds that no such comments have appeared in the newspapers there, and these incidents have not been given the great publicity as they have been in this country.
I do not believe that the Germans really mind too much about some of these incidents. They would far prefer to have stationed there tough, highly-trained fighting troops rather than "cissy" ones. I have spoken to Germans both here and in Germany, and I think that they understand the behaviour of these young soldiers.
I think that with some notable exceptions the fault lies with the officers. I am sure that there should have been more contact and liaison with the Germans by our officers, because during the past fifteen years they have not made enough use of the opportunities available to them to contact either the civilian population or the German officials.
As has been said, it is likely that our troops are to be stationed in Germany


for many years to come. I therefore think that there ought to be a directive from the top laying down that our officers should learn German as part of their training. Often there has not been much need for liaison with the civilian population. But during the flooding at Hamburg this was particularly noticeable. It would have been extremely useful if, during that time, many more of our officers had been able to speak and understand German. I hope that there will not be a repetition of the Hamburg flooding, but it certainly would be extremely helpful if our officers were able to understand the local population and officials.
I think that for once we can learn something from the American Army. The Americans take immense trouble to brief and educate their troops before they go to a foreign country. The officers give talks to the troops, and booklets are issued on such subjects as how to get on with the local inhabitants. They go to great lengths to explain the customs and ways of the country in which they are stationed. They do this even when they come to Britain, and much more so in Germany. We should emulate the Americans.
I repeat that some of the fault for these incidents lies with our unit officers. They have not liaised enough with the Germans. They have not made a sufficient effort to understand the German way of life, and, therefore, have not been able to pass on the information to the troops under their command. I am sure that this can be put right, and I have every confidence that it will be in the near future.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. John Robertson: I do not wish to follow the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) about whether British troops should or should not be in Germany. I agree that bringing them back here offers an attractive solution to the problem, but, as long as they are there, there is a responsibility on the Government and on the German authorities to make life as tolerable as possible for them.
I was there for only a short time, but I am satisfied that the British soldier in Germany is neither better nor worse

than he should be. I agree that far too much has been made of the difficulties with which our soldiers have to deal. At the same time, however, I am satisfied that there is the problem of morale. My impression was that officers felt that what they were doing was a bit unreal; that they were playing at being soldiers. They did not believe in the story they told, or their function. I felt that that had in some way gone down the ranks and that the men felt the same.
While it is, of course, a little difficult to have political commissars in the army of a democratic country, I felt very keenly that some effort should be made to explain to the soldier exactly why he was in Germany. Perhaps it would not be a bad thing if the German authorities also did a little to explain to the German population why the British soldier is in Germany.
While I was in Germany I came across a number of obvious complaints. No matter where it was—at B.A.O.R. headquarters or at corps or divisional headquarters, even at regimental headquarters—these problems were understood and realised.
It is all very well to say that we do not want to build houses there. The troops want housing. I noted at the time that the housing position was in a horrible mess. We were told that the problem was not one of cash, because cash was forthcoming, but that it took two or three years before planning permission could be obtained from the local German authorities. This seems to me to be a point which the German authorities might tackle to speed up things. The married quarters that we saw were very good indeed. But there were very few married quarters for the private soldier, and this should be looked into.
The barracks were a mixed bag. Some I visited were very good and the soldiers were very happy about them, but I saw the Elizabeth Barracks in Minden and the N.A.A.F.I. accommodation within the barracks, and the only word with which I can describe them is "deplorable". It is little wonder that the Cameronians have taken the quickest road out through the gate and into the town when they have finished, for there


is nothing attractive to them in the barracks.
The recreation problem is well enough appreciated by the officers. We were told that the problem was one of boredom and that it was one of leisure. We were told about the uplifting activities which were available for the soldiers. We were told that there were facilities for hobbies, and also language courses and so on. I inquired what kind of language course was provided —whether a grammar book and a note book were needed and whether the men had to do home work. Those concerned at the highest levels did not know, but they did not think so. When I got further down, I found that that was the method of teaching German. I can tell the Minister that if that is the method by which he expects to teach German to the Cameronians, he might as well stop. It struck me that compulsory German might be a very good thing if done during working hours. It might also solve some of the communications problems between the Scottish Regiments and the English Regiments.
Another problem which I had in Germany was to make a number of people aware that it was the British Army and not the English Army. Perhaps this was my prejudice coming to the surface. However, Scotsmen in the Army resent it being described as the English Army, particularly by officers. It might be thought that this is a niggling point, but I thought it was very important and said so in no uncertain fashion.
What kind of recreation is to be provided for these young men of 18 to 20 from Glasgow, Lanarkshire and so on? I should like to see them taking courses and enjoying hobbies. The facilities provided are very good. I asked a number of young men what they wanted to do. The trouble about playing football is that it occupies only 11 a side and so not all can play. I was told that the facilities for swimming were not very good, but occasionally they went swimming. What then?
It was put very well by an officer, who said that one of the major problems was, of course, lack of girls. This problem is not confined to the Cameronians, who have always had a great deal of initiative in solving it any-

where else. But I was told by a soldier —perhaps this is a clue to the situation —that if a German girl had the courage to become friendly with a British soldier, in certain parts of certain towns she would be ostracised by her own people and thus became a social outcast. Consequently, German girls were not prepared to speak to British soldiers. This was borne out by what happened recently when the Cameronians organised a dance; when the British soldier asked the German girl to dance, the answer was "No." This may arise from different social customs, and it may be difficult to get across to the man from Glasgow, where he can go to a dance and dance with any girl in the hall.

Mr. Shinwell: Has my hon. Friend any solution for this?

Mr. Robertson: My right hon. Friend might use his imagination a little. I think that it is in this direction that the problem might be solved.
There is a lack of accommodation in the barracks at Minden, and it struck me that one of the solutions there might be to have a N.A.A.F.I. centre in the middle of the town to which the married men from all the regiments around Minden could go. It would at least take the Cameronians away from a rather notorious night club where the only girls who are prepared to speak to Cameronians are available.

Mr. Shinwell: What about the members of the Women's Royal Army Corps? Are they there in large numbers, and do they mix with the men?

Mr. Robertson: I think I saw two members of the W.R.A.C. there. They are conspicuous by their absence. This may be an idea, and perhaps the Minister will say something about it. I believe that about 50,000 German civilians are employed by the Army doing many jobs which members of the W.R.A.C. might well do.
As to the relationships between the troops and the Germans, I do not think anyone should exaggerate the situation, but at the same time it should not be minimised. I spoke to soldiers from all formations right up to Minden. While their experience varies a good deal, all will say that their relationships with the


German civil population are not the happiest. Some of them frankly say that they consider the German civilian population to be hostile. On the other hand, I am bound to say that when one presses the soldier for reasons, they are not always forthcoming; he is not able to put into words his feeling that the Germans are hostile, though he knows they are. But hostility to troops in barrack towns is not unknown, even in Britain.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Even in Dunoon.

Mr. Robertson: Even in Dunoon, as my hon. Friend says. I think it is natural that the civilian population should feel resentful of foreigners, foreign troops particularly, being in their country.
I want to say a word or two about the Press.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Before my hon. Friend goes on to that, I should like to say, having listened to his speech, that I served in the army of occupation in Germany. Although that was 45 years ago, and although it is true that I am inclined to be anti-German, because of their background, I am also familiar with German historic development through reading Wheeler-Bennett's book, and I have not been better treated in any country in any part of the world than I was by the ordinary Germans when I was in their country.

Mr. Robertson: I could not disagree with what my hon. Friend has said. I accept his point of view. I have no personal complaint, but I should not be telling the truth if I said other than what I have said just now. I examined and questioned soldier after soldier on this point. Always we got the same answer. This was the feeling of the troops. I must explain also that when we pressed them for reasons why they should feel this way the explanations given were not very adequate; but the feeling persisted. There it is. I feel that perhaps the German authorities themselves were partly responsible. They had not done enough through their Press to explain why the British soldiers were there.
All our fellows, particularly those who have been retained for six months, could provide a solution: they want to go

back home. One of the reasons for their resentment was the extension of their service there by the six months. They felt that that was most unfair, and that some other solution should have been found.
But the Press really worried me, and it was also worrying the Cameronians. When I was in Minden they were very angry about the Press, for obvious reasons. Because of all this floodlight of publicity on the Cameronians, I feel there were restrictions put on the troops. They could hardly go out of the barrack gates but they met Press men. No wonder we got headlines about the fact that the troops broke up the Press men's cameras. They could not go into a "pub" but they were being bothered by the Press people. I feel very angry about the Press, and I do not feel in the least bit inhibited in saying so. I feel very angry indeed.

Mr. Shinwell: Because my hon. Friend has a safe seat, that is why.

Mr. Robertson: Well, perhaps I could not have a seat safer than that of my right hon. Friend. In any case, this is how I feel.
But I am bound to say that I have a great deal of sympathy with the Press also. I had some experience of Army public relations officers, and really, if we wanted to create a war, I would suggest we leave it to the Army's public relations officers. I had a personal experience of this. I shall not recount it to the Committee. I do not want to get anyone into trouble; but it made it quite clear that they have not the slightest idea how to deal with civilians of any kind at all. They treat them as though they were all in the Army. When I was spoken to as though I was in the Army it did not take me long to disabuse their minds. That was the kind of public relations work, and it was bad.
It was also bad in London, because whether or not the Press "missed a trick" I do not think the Secretary of State did very well to say so. I think that if he wanted the Press to feel angry that was the very thing to say. Then when the Cameronians put on a show, in full regimental uniform, with the pipe band, and with all the German folk there, along with the mayor and councillors of Minden, and the German Press, a ban


was put on the British Press, and this, of course, was calculated not to help public relations. I felt that the public relations work of the Army was at a very low state indeed.
Another effect of the Press publicity was what I felt were the very savage sentences being imposed after courts-martial on the Cameronians and other soldiers in Minden. I do not want to go into details. They were reported in the Press. The soldiers there felt that, because there was this publicity, the Army was determined to make an example of someone, and the Cameronians were the victims, and the Lancashire Regiment also. If this was so, I think it was all wrong. I think that everything should be done to make it appear that, whatever a soldier has done, he is fairly treated, strictly in accordance with Regulations.
I have one or two suggestions to make. First, I would suggest that immediately the soldiers be taken out of the Elizabeth Barracks and found decent quarters. That is the first thing for the Cameronians. Secondly, I found that the soldiers, although they were very interested in the television, had some difficulty in following the German programmes. They can get a British programme only when Eurovision is on. Is it not possible to have either closed circuit television for the troops or a link up in some way with British television, or canned television? This would keep the soldiers a bit happier at least one or two nights in the week.
At Osnabrück the central N.A.A.F.I. in the town was a great attraction and the soldiers used it, particularly the married soldiers and their wives. The same thing in Minden would save a great deal of trouble. The question of live shows has been raised, and this is something which I think the Government ought to look at.
There are one or two other things. For instance, it struck me that it would be a good thing if some of the soldiers' folks occasionally had facilities to visit them there, having a short holiday—not at the Government's expense, I am not asking that; but arrangements could be made for them to see their soldier sons at work, for the soldiers to have an open day. I should like to see Highland

games organised in Minden. That would certainly be a big attraction for the German population, and it would certainly be a relief for some of the boredom for some of the Scottish troops.
I had a long talk with quite a large number of Cameronians, and I resented very much the criticism in the Press about the soldiers. They are ordinary, everyday working-class men. There are good and there are bad, but, because there are one or two bad eggs in the regiment, it is completely wrong to label the whole regiment as a bad one. I found that that was resented, and some of that resentment is reflected in some of the things I have said.

5.39 p.m.

Mr. Julian Critchley: I used to listen to speeches made in this House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) with respect and amusement, but after the one he has made today one is inclined to look forward to the next for amusement rather than with respect, for to advocate the withdrawal from Germany of the British Army of the Rhine is a splendid example of magnificent irresponsibility. The real question at the present is surely not the withdrawal of British forces, but whether or not we in this country are in a position to reinforce the British Army of the Rhine.
The Rhine Army has been in all our newspapers for the past few weeks, and this would have been a rather good thing if consideration had been given to the role of Rhine Army and to what Rhine Army does between Mondays and Fridays, rather than to what some of those in Rhine Army happen to do on a Saturday night. It is hardly important, and I agree that the incidents which happened have been widely exaggerated. If one compares the attitude of the British Press towards what happened with the attitude of the German Press, one gets the whole thing in perspective. The Germans live with three-quarters-of-a-million allied soldiers in Germany, and have done so for the past fifteen years. Incidents of this sort are to be expected and are accepted as such.
The fact that the House was in recess throughout the period of these incidents helped the Press in that the Press was more enthusiastic in following up these


stories. I suppose that at the root of the problem is the young unmarried Regular soldier who has little to do after 4.30 p.m., who has no girl friend and who can buy spirits at 3d. a shot in the barracks. I know that it is the Army's view that it is not a good thing that the Regular soldier is able to buy spirits at 3d. a shot, and I wonder whether it would not be wise for the Army to stop this custom inside the barracks.
If it is a problem of the young unmarried Regular recruit, aged 18 or 19, it is asking for trouble if, from 4.30 p.m. he has nowhere to go and no girl to take out, but can start drinking at 3d. a glass, and, if he wants to go out of barracks, which is only reasonable, finds that the only place to which he can go is a shady café which is there to serve the Germans who work on the canal system which runs through Minden.
I am not in favour of the curfew which the Secretary of State announced last week. I consider that there is a chance that by having a curfew at this stage the incidents may be concentrated between 11.30 p.m. and midnight. The other disadvantage of having a curfew at this time is to lower the morale of Rhine Army. This view which was expressed to us when we were in Germany when we asked about a curfew. If the whole Rhine Army is to suffer for the sins of a handful, it is hardly a method for raising morale.
Rather than have a curfew at this juncture, I suggest that the Army should stop selling spirits at 3d. a glass within the barracks. Secondly, and far more important, they should throw out of the Army not only the kind of soldier who gets involved in these incidents, but also the sort of soldier who, in the view of his commanding officer, is likely to be involved in this kind of incident.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my hon. Friend seriously suggesting that when a man has committed no offence at all, but merely in somebody else's opinion might commit an offence, an engagement which he signed for a number of years, with pension rights at the end of it, should be terminated?

Mr. Critchley: Yes. I spoke in Minden to a commanding officer of a regiment closely involved in these

troubles. He said that that morning he had drawn up a list of 18 men who he fully expected within the next six months would be involved in this sort of incident. If he knows that they are likely to be involved, then it seems rather foolish to wait for them to come before a court-martial in order to have them discharged from the Army.
It is only common sense, for if the role of the Army is not only to stay in Germany, as most people expect, but also to prevent war, to recognise that our relations with the Germans are extremely important. Unfortunately, this is the sort of incident of which we shall see rather more than less, and the reason is the Government's decision to turn over to a all-Regular Army. It was said to me in conversation by an officer in the B.A.O.R. that he estimated —I underline the word estimated—that one-third of the recent Regular recruits who arrived in the Rhine Army had police records in this country. if we are to use all the media of mass-communication to extract recruits from a society which enjoys over-full employment, it is not surprising that there is an admixture of best and worst, and we are getting a considerable number of the worst into the Regular Army.

Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: The civilian record of a man is not disclosed at the time of enlistment. I do not think, therefore, that it is an act of responsibility for my hon. Friend to publish an estimate that one-third of these men have criminal records. No doubt he has been given that estimate, but it can be based on nothing but surmise, and I do not think that it serves the purpose which he has in mind to say, or does any good to publish with the authority of an hon. Member, that it is his opinion of the state of previous convictions among Chose enlisting.

Mr. Critchley: I admitted that it was a surmise, but it was a view expressed to me by a serving officer in B.A.O.R. and it is a view widely held within B.A.O.R.—that the standard of recent recruits 'has declined, not only in behaviour, which is obvious, but in skill in handling the work which goes on in a highly complicated army. People in B.A.O.R. are concerned


about the standard of their recent recruits, and to pretend otherwise is to put one's head in the sand.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the hon. Member aware that this problem has existed for centuries? When asked what his soldiers at Waterloo were like, the Duke of Wellington said that they were the scum of the earth. I should like the hon. Member to give his reasons why a soldier who has a record of criminal convictions should be excluded from the Army. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) quoted the case of a man who had a record of killing. Surely a man with a record of killing is exactly the sort of person who should be welcomed in the army.

Mr. Critchley: I thoroughly disagree. The role of the Army in Germany is not offensive. One hopes that the fact that the Rhine Army is there with the N.A.T.O. forces will prevent the outbreak of war. I assume that we all agree about that.
To reinforce the point, we have to live with the German people for the next fifteen or twenty years at least, if present circumstances continue. In the Army's own interest, therefore, it should be specifically concerned with the type of recruit which it is getting, and I am making a point for which there is wide support outside the House —that if we extract people from a society which is enjoying overfull employment in order to get them into the regular Army we shall get the best and the worst. Surely no one can disagree with that statement.
The solution might well be to reintroduce some form of selective service. This is a view which has wide support in the Rhine Army, and it may be a sensible way of raising our forces to a reasonable level in Germany. It comas oddly from the Minister of Defence and the Government, in their defence policy, when they claim, rightly, that Britain has responsibilities over and above many of her N.A.T.O. allies in defence and yet she is the only N.A.T.O. Power to have no conscription. This simply does not add up. There is widespread concern within B.A.O.R. both as to its strength, leaving aside the question of

quality, and as to the equipment which it has at present.

Mr. Wigg: I am in considerable agreement with the views which the hon. Member is expressing, but does he not agree that it is an outrage for my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to associate the dictum which the Duke of Wellington made in quite different social circumstances with any section of the Services in living memory?

Mr. Critchley: I thoroughly agree with the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg).
A question often asked in the Rhine Army is, "When shall we be brought up to full strength?". This is more important than what happens on Saturday nights. At a Press conference a few months ago at which I was present, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence told defence correspondents that the Norstad forward strategy was the one which was correct and said that in future Britain would support it.
The question one immediately asks, not only here but when visiting the Rhine Army, is how long it will be before the Rhine Army is in a position to move up forward. The Minister of Defence has not answered that question in any way, in exactly the same way as he has not answered another point. namely, if B.A.O.R. is to go up from 51,000 to 55,000, as he announced recently, when will it go up to 55,000? Estimates have been made that the Army will go up to 55,000 men before Christmas. Another estimate has been made that we will not be strong enough to move forward for three or four years.

Mr. Watkinson: My hon. Friend has got hold of the wrong end of the stick It is not Rhine Army's decision when it moves forward. It is General Norstad's decision. I want to get the record straight. What I have said all through is that we support General Norstad's concept of a new forward strategy. How it is implemented, when it is implemented, and what steps have to be taken to implement it are matters entirely for the Supreme Allied Commander. When he is ready to issue the necessary instructions, he will no doubt do so and I think that we shall find that B.A.O.R. can conform to them.

Mr. Critchley: In a speech to the Institute of Strategic Studies earlier this year General Norstad said that he had asked the Commander of the Central Army group to move up forward. The reply of the Commander of the Central Army group was that he could not move up forward because of the weakness of the Northern Army Group, the Rhine Army being the third strongest part of the four corps which go to make up the Northern Army Group.
If that is the expressed view of the Supreme Allied Commander on this issue, it makes me wonder who is right. Nobody can deny that for the past three years a tremendous argument has been going on about what the Americans consider to be the force levels which are desirable in Central Europe and the opposite view taken by the British, French and German Governments
General Norstad has requested, and will request later this year at the triennial review, that the three States I have mentioned each increases its conventional forces in Central Europe. The Germans have already been unofficially asked to go up to 16 divisions in the Bundeswehr. Herr Strauss has said that because of shortage of labour this looks to be highly unlikely. The French are not moving their troops from Algeria to N.A.T.O. but rather to Alsace-Lorraine. The British are thinking perhaps in terms of 64,000 to 75,000 men. But our let-out is that we expect our allies—the French and the Germans—to make a similar contribution in terms of conventional forces. If they do not, we will not go up to 64,000 or 75,000, which will be the request made by the Supreme Commander at the triennial review at the beginning of next year.
There is concern amongst the British officers at N.A.T.O. that Britain's influence within N.A.T.O. is declining and has declined. This decline is related to our smaller contribution to the land forces in Central Europe. This belief is held not only among British officers in N.A.T.O. It is also held among British officers in the British Army of the Rhine.
So much is made in argument about B.A.O.R. of its nuclear strategy. At the moment, the only way in which B.A.O.R. could hope to operate successfully in a limited war would be to saturate the

battlefield immediately by the first use of tactical nuclear weapons. There is no other way in which a force which is under strength—each division of the three is responsible for 1,000 square miles of Germany—could hope to hold up even a medium-sized Soviet advance in Central Europe. There is no other way but immediate saturation.

Mr. Paget: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that each division is responsible for 1,000 square miles. It is responsible for over 10,000 square miles.

Mr. Critchley: I stand corrected.

Mr. Kershaw: Has my hon. Friend also reflected that this great responsibility of the British divisions may be because they have been given too much ground to hold in proportion to their strength, as compared to their allies who are much stronger on the ground?

Mr. Critchley: That is an extremely valid point. Everybody to whom I spoke agreed that, if there were a Soviet attack in Northern Europe, it would move over the Westphalian plain into the sector held by the Northern Army group. The Central Army Group is stronger in divisions than the Northern Army Group and is in an area which is more easily defensible. It therefore seems likely that the Central Army Group would extend its front northwards so as to squeeze the Northern Army Group into a smaller sector. That is one way by which the Rhine Army could successfully hold the line of the River Weser. Another way would be to bring over the three divisions which constitute the Strategic Reserve, and station them in Germany.
As the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) said, there are more women and children in B.A.O.R. than there are British soldiers. If B.A.O.R. is ever to be deployed to face a crisis situation, it is planned that the wives and children move out westwards at the same time as our troops deploy eastwards. The confusion that this would cause in terms of traffic movement would be beyond belief. Would it not be wiser to move out the families from the Rhine Army and in their place bring over the three divisions of the Strategic Reserve, thus having four


divisions in B.A.O.R.? At the same time as this is done we should rotate the troops in Germany more frequently than every three years, as at present.
I was interrupted when dealing with the saturation of the front line with tactical nuclear weapons. If this is all that B.A.O.R. could do at present to resist a threat, it is strange that nobody then moves on to stage two, which is this. If we can hold up an advance or adventure of this kind only by the immediate use of tactical nuclear weapons, it would be all right if we had the power to use them at that point, but we have not got the power to use battlefield nuclear weapons. The power to use tactical nuclear weapons remains firmly in the hands of General Norstad. It is inconceivable that he will be prepared to agree to the immediate use of battlefield nuclear weapons, even if it is the only way in the British Army of the Rhine at this moment is able to prevent a Soviet advance.
If we are to wait for four years before Rhine Army, and, therefore, the Northern Army Group, is strong enough to move forward and take up a forward strategy, then over that four-year period the Government are taking a gamble. They are gambling from weakness, first, that the enemy will not exploit this weakness, and, secondly, that the resentment that this comparative weakness causes amongst our allies will not become a serious political problem. I only hope that the Government can pull off the gamble.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I am sure that the hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Critchley) will forgive me if I do not follow him in too great detail on the tactical arguments that he has used this afternoon. That is not the main point I want to make during this comparatively short debate. However, I agree with a large amount of what the hon. Gentleman said.
I was with the hon. Gentleman in the B.A.O.R. only a week or two ago. I was horrified to see the way in which some of the units within our divisions are muddled together because they are placed simply on the basis of where

barrack accommodation happens to be. In my view, provided that it started after half-past four on a Friday afternoon and before eight o'clock on a Monday morning, a Russian division could form up on the Rhine before our divisions could form up on the Weser.
We are having this debate primarily because of the fuss that has been going on since the Friday before Whitsun about B.A.O.R. I say quite deliberately "the Friday before Whitsun", because it was on that Friday morning in the House that the Secretary of State for War made his fantastic, ridiculous and unnecessary statement that the Press had "missed a trick". I am sorry that he is not here now, but he is probably getting ready to reply to the debate.
That was a really ridiculous statement for the Secretary of State to make. If an ordinary back bencher makes such a statement it does not matter unduly, but for a Minister to get so worked up on a Friday morning in this House as to make such a statement was quite wrong. That statement, and the quite ridiculous reaction there has since been from the Press to his taunt, is primarily the cause of the trouble there appears to be at present in the Rhine Army, and is primarily the cause of this debate.
The Minister said that the Press had missed a trick, and although I think that he should not have said that, and that it was a grave mistake to have made that statement, it is probably perfectly true. My impression is that there are two reporters who are usually stationed with the Rhine Army and who, so I am told, always make a practice of looking through the information about courts-martial.
By pure chance, both of them were on leave in the United Kingdom at about the time when the notices of this court-martial were posted. I am told that other reporters tend to rely on those two. I do not think that there is any doubt that the notice was put up a greater number of days than is statutorily required under court-martial procedure.
The reporters, having missed a trick, as the Secretary of State put it, decided to get back on him by taking it out of B.A.O.R. A number of questions must be asked about the activities of the Press and television camera crews in Minden


during the last few weeks. I want the Secretary of State to tell us whether or not some of the statements made about them in B.A.O.R. are true. If they are, there may be a need for the Press Council to make inquiries, in addition to any inquiry that the Minister is making.
When I was in Germany I heard two things. The Secretary of State must know whether they are correct. First, I was informed on two occasions that the civil authorities in Minden had informed the British Army authorities just after Whitsun that they anticipated no trouble whatsoever in the town on a particular night unless British television camera crews stirred it up. That story is going round B.A.O.R., and we should be told whether or not such a statement was made to the Army authorities. If so, it appears that the presence of television camera crews there have made the situation much worse than it otherwise would have been.
Another story that is going round, and which was told to members of the delegation, is that one man was drinking in a bar in Minden when he was approached by a young and attractive blonde charmer who, apparently, bought him a drink, talked to him, and invited him back to her hotel room. I do not know what he expected when he got there, but I am told that a television camera crew and interviewer were waiting for him, and that he was asked about his unit, about the Rhine Army and about conditions in Minden. If that did happen, it is disgraceful, and a general condemnation of British television.
I do not know whether it involved an Independent Television crew or one from the B.B.C., but did that incident happen? If so, what action does the Secretary of State intend to take to see that this activity on the part of television personnel is brought to the front, and to ensure that it does not happen again? I am quite sure that a great deal of what has appeared in the newspapers and elsewhere about B.A.O.R. has been worked up primarily by the Secretary of State's ridiculous statement, which has, somehow or other, upset the Press and television people who, in trying to take it out of the right hon.

Gentleman, are causing a lot of unnecessary trouble for B.A.O.R.
One must look at the conditions of the troops in Germany. Many of our troops are stationed in Westphalia, and my impression is that the average West-phalian does not like soldiers. He is not worried whether they are German soldiers, or French or American soldiers, or members of B.A.O.R. There appears to be an anti-military attitude in Westphalia. One of my hon. Friends says that that is good, and I am inclined to agree with him. Nevertheless, our troops are there, and tend to suffer from that attitude.
From what one sees of how troops of all nations use the training facilities in Germany, it is a wonder that the civilian population puts up with them at all. For instance, I went over a fairly large bridge across the Weser. It was being wired up for demolition as part of an engineering exercise. I found that the engineers had set up their advance head-quarters in the back garden of a house overlooking the bridge. With them was a company H.Q. of the Welsh Guards who were with the unit.
Nobody had inquired whether they could go into the back garden, and this, apparently, is normal procedure. An order covering the area had been made and the troops were entitled by law to enter property. The headquarters were set up, and the people in the house woke up at five o'clock in the morning and found them there. I wonder what would be the attitude of the average British citizen if he looked out first thing in the morning to find his back garden occupied in that way?
On the other hand, I have to say that on one occasion a barn was requisitioned in a similar way to accommodate a lorry. When the driver of the lorry touched one corner of the barn it fell down and the owner warmly shook his hand and thanked him because of the compensation he would get from B.A.O.R. The civilian population do have some compensations under the present system. Nevertheless, when people have to live in a country along with three-quarters of a million of their own and other troops, it is not surprising that they should be rather "fed up" and suspicious.
I am disappointed that we have not so far had from the Secretary of State or from the Minister of Defence any real support for our troops in B.A.O.R. We have not heard from the Government any strong argument supporting our men in Germany. We have not been given nearly as much information as I expected at the beginning of the debate.
We were told by the Minister of Defence that perhaps later in the debate the Secretary of State for War would give some information. We were also told by the Minister that the figures of courts-martial were quite comparable with those in British Army units stationed elsewhere. He said that they compared favourably with the situation in the civil population. That is probably true, but why have we not been given details? Why have we not been told that many of the 50 courts-martial held in B.A.O.R. each month are for civilian offences which, if they had been committed in this country, would probably never have gone to court-martial——

Mr. Watkinson: A very full list of these figures appeared in HANSARD, in a Written Answer by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Reynolds: I have not seen those figures, but this debate will receive far more publicity than any Written Answer. We should have rather more publicity given to this than can be expected from a Written Answer published at the back of HANSARD.
When the average person thinks of a court-martial, he thinks of something dreadful— something lined up to try someone for mutiny or, at the very least, to try an officer alleged to have defaulted with mess funds. The average person does not normally think of a court-martial as being set up to deal with something which, in this country, would be dealt with in a magistrates' court. That fact must be got home to the Army and to the civil population in this country.
In my view, one of the main troubles in B.A.O.R. is that some years ago the Government took the decision to abolish conscription without facing the changes necessary to keep in Germany, not a large, conscript Army but a medium-sized Regular Army. They apparently

took that decision without realising then —or they woke up to it too late— that a conscript Army did not need provision also for wives and children, but that, with a Regular Army, provision of family accommodation was necessary.
I am told that in a garrison town with 2,000 other ranks, 280 are waiting for accommodation for their families. I am also told that at present it is most unlikely than an officer of the rank of captain or below at Rhine Army Headquarters— and there is naturally a preponderance of officers at the Rhine Army Headquarters— will obtain married quarters for his wife and family during the whole of his two to two-and-a-half years' service at headquarters.
The need for accommodation of this kind in a Regular Army, as against a conscript Army, should have been seen by the Minister of Defence and the Army Council long before now. We are told that plans are now in hand to make sure that an adequate amount of accommodation is provided, but it should have been provided last year, not next year. The need for it is there now, and the Government should have foreseen that need. That is why I hope that the Committee will register the strongest possible protest against the Government at seven o'clock.
There are also far too many barracks that have not been modernised. When we took them over in 1945, many of them had been built in the early 1930s. No doubt the majority of the troops who saw them would say that compared with those at Salisbury Plain and Catterick they were absolutely wonderful. No doubt, many of them are a great deal better than some of the barracks in this country at the present time. But when a man in the Regular Army has to expect that he will spend half of a twenty-one years' engagement period in Germany, we must make sure that he is getting good living accommodation there and that these barracks are modernised.
About half of these barracks do not come up to modern standards. Would any hon. Member like to use a 15 foot square wash room with tiled kerbs, two hot water taps and two cold, and a few slightly bent, rusty aluminium basins? That may have been all right in 1945 but it is not the sort of accommodation we should be prepared to provide for a


Regular Army that has to spend a large number of years in Germany.
Then there is the question of uniforms. Less than 50 per cent. of the troops in Germany have been issued with the No. 2 type uniform. It is the type of uniform which has been talked about in the House for a long period, but I think that about only half the troops in Germany have it. Those who have it take a great pride in it, and soldiers, N. C. O. s and officers told me, that those who have it wear it when they go out in the evenings. Those who have only their battle-dress immediately get out of it into civilian clothes.
There are only about 40 suits of the No. I dress available in most units and these are used for the guard of honour. They are issued to men of the right size, the guard of honour is laid on, and then the 40 suits are taken back and put in the quartermaster's store. This is not the type of thing that makes for the true régimental spirit and a well-appointed and efficient Army in Germany.
There is a great deal more I would like to say, but as there are others who wish to speak in the debate, I conclude by saying that I certainly shall be prepared to vote against the Minister tonight.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I feel that this has been a most valuable debate It has been valuable very largely because, on both sides of the Committee, the British Army on the Rhine has received the support and defence which it deserves from political representatives in this country. I am very glad that the Committee has had this opportunity. I only wish— and if it were so we should not be divided— it had received equal support from the Ministers who are responsible for it.
We have had an extremely interesting speech from the hon Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Critchley). I regret one observation which he made. That was his guess as to how many of the recruits joining B.A.O.R. had a civil conviction. As to whether that civil conviction was any other than for a motor cycle parking offence is a pure guess, and I do not think that one can speculate on it. I hope that he will

not feel that I am disparaging him when I say that by far the most interesting part of his speech was when it called forth an intervention by the Minister of Defence of a really alarming nature.
As so often happens when the right hon. Gentleman intervenes, he indicated an almost total misunderstanding of the problems. He said that the implementation of forced strategy was a matter which did not concern him, but General Norstad, and that when orders for its implementation were put forward B.A.O.R. would doubtless comply with it. That really shows that he has not the faintest idea what that policy is or what it involves. B.A.O.R. is not in a position to comply with it.
General Cassels knows that it is not in a condition to comply with it and, indeed, has said so in public. It cannot comply with it because the facilities are not there on the ground to make it possible, and, so far as I can see, nothing is being done to make it possible. If the right hon. Gentleman is as ignorant as this as to the purpose of B.A.O.R. it is understandable that the men serving in B.A.O.R.— officers, n. c. o. s and privates— should be equally worried and confused. This is one of the great difficulties.
It is very difficult to maintain the morale of an Army which does not understand what it is there for. Is the Army there to defend Germany? With its present dispositions it is patently incapable of doing so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) pointed out, it is easier and quicker for the Russians to deploy on the Rhine than it is far B.A.O.R. to reach its advance positions on the Weser. If the Russians were to move one Friday night, they would be on the Rhine before we had even assembled. That is the condition of helplessness of that force in its present dispositions.

Mr. Watkinson: Rubbish.

Mr. Paget: The right hon. Gentleman says, "Rubbish". He should go out and have a look because, once again, he has demonstrated his appalling ignorance of the problems involved.
Nobody out there suggests that B.A.O.R.—I shall not mention a time— could get to its positions under a matter of days. Does anyone suggest that if


the Russians decided to move it would take them days to cover 100 miles or so to the Rhine? It is absolute nonsense. We are not in a position to stop them and that is very largely so because of our failure to comply with our obligations.
We have been far too anxious to get consent to have under three divisions instead of the four we promised. We have been pressing for that instead of pressing for the ground facilities to do the job that our troops are in Germany to do, and that is to defend Germany. That is the problem. Is it to be wondered at that when we meet them, soldier after soldier says, "We are not here for any purpose except as a political gesture". When the Army is treated like that one has sympathy for that sort of observation.
If they are not there to defend Germany but for garrison duty only, why are steps not being taken to make a garrison life possible for them? We are told that the Secretary of State for War will tell us how things are to be made easier. Believe me, the Army is not asking for things to be made easier. Things are too easy in the Army. It has hours and hours and days and days of successive boredom, and that is what the Army is complaining of. It wants more activity, more vigour, more to do — not things made easier. It wants things made harder and more energetic.
That is generally what an Army wants if its discipline is to be maintained. The surprising thing is how well it has been maintained in spite of the fact that it has been allowed to feel itself purposeless, and has been selected quite arbitrarily and, as everyone agrees, quite unfairly, for a further six months' conscription. These men, in an Army which cannot understand its purpose anyway— and understandably cannot understand — are selected for this special treatment. It is amazing, under these circumstances, how good the discipline, how good the morale, and how good the relations with the German population have been.
The only complaint that I discovered — and this is almost confined to Westphalia, where there is natural surliness and an anti-military tradition—was that when the troops went into a caée Germans were inclined to move to the

other end, and when they went down the street Germans sometimes left the pavement. But that was the height of the complaint. One could find house after house into which the troops were invited as guests of German families. We have allied troops, the Americans, based here. I wonder whether their relations with our people are as good as are the relations of our troops with the Germans. The situation is surprisingly good in Germany.
I come now to the Cameronians. This is a very fine regiment with an extremely good record and an exceptionally good commanding officer. I was very impressed indeed by Colonel Kettles. The public relations officer, as most of my hon. Friends have pointed out, has taken a battering and he looked very like the time and motion study man in the film, "I'm all right, Jack." Some hon. Members may remember the impression there of a hammering having been taken.
Colonel Kettles, on the other hand, had stood up to tremendous pressure and attack by the Press. He was unshaken. His nerve was perfectly steady and he never deviated from the defence of his troops and his regiment. If the Secretary of State had stood as firm as Colonel Kettles we should not be dividing the Committee tonight.
It is the Government's case, as expressed by the Minister of Defence and the Secretary of State for War, that the discipline of the Army is all right and that the relations with the Germans are all right. Yet, because of a Press campaign— which, according to their case, is an unworthy campaign and one without substance— they have quit under pressure and have let the Army down.
The Government have imposed a general punishment. They have said, "Because some men have misbehaved, the whole of the school shall be kept in." That, in substance, is what the midnight curfew amounts to. It is no use pretending that it is not a punishment. If it is not a punishment, why pick on B.A.O.R. alone? And why just pick on the privates of B.A.O.R.? The Secretary of State is not doing anything to the N. C. O. s. This curfew does not apply to them. He is not doing anything to the officers.
The officers are responsible for discipline. In my day, at any rate, if there


was a breakdown in discipline, and if anyone were kept in because of it, the officers responsible were kept in. But in this case it is only the privates who are kept in. Indeed, it is only the privates of the Army. It does not include even the privates of the Royal Air Force.
If the Secretary of State wants to have a nice private riot not involving Germans, this, I should have thought, was the way to do it. I can almost visualise the Giles cartoon in which privates of the Royal Air Force are pointing out the clock to privates of the Army in a German estaminet. That is the sort of thing which will happen. It will happen because the Secretary of State, whose job it is to defend and support the Army, has quit under the pressure of a Press campaign.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who, as usual, gave us a most informed and excellent speech on this matter, has pointed out strongly that the discipline of the forces is the responsibility of the commanding officers and not of the Secretary of State. But the Secretary of State's job is to support the Army. If those responsible for discipline— the commanding officers— require their troops to be in at certain times, then, obviously, they should have authority to do so.
But the Secretary of State at this juncture, after this unfair and unjust campaign that is his own case— announces that the privates of B.A.O.R. are no longer to be considered as responsible people, that they and they alone— not the Air Force. N. C. O. s or officers— are to be treated like children and brought in at twelve o'clock. Really! What does he feel that will do to the discipline of the Army?

6.28 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): We have had a very interesting debate and I join with my right hon. and hon. Friends in saying that I think it is a very good thing that we have been given the opportunity of discussing these affairs. It seems to me that two principal questions emerge from the debate. First, is there anything really wrong with B.A.O.R.? Secondly, are we doing enough for our troops while they are in Germany?
From the beginning of the present controversy I have said that I do not

believe that there is any serious cause for concern about B.A.O.R. as a whole. I do not want to minimise the various incidents which have taken place recently. In themselves, they are disturbing and each has been, or will be, very fully investigated and dealt with. But I refuse—and I have said this all along—to draw from these various incidents any general conclusion that the morale or discipline of B.A.O.R. is lower than we ought to expect.
The vast majority of officers and troops in B.A.O.R. are doing a really magnificent job. The facts are that the incidents which have received so much publicity have taken place over a considerable period of time and in quite different sections of B.A.O.R. None the less, there have been a number of suggestions, both in this Committee and outside, that the standard of discipline in Rhine Army has fallen. If there is one thing that is certain, it is that the state of discipline in a force of 50,000 or more troops should not be judged by three or four incidents.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) said, the figures speak for themselves. The standard of discipline in B.A.O.R. compares favourably with most other major commands, especially when we make allowance for the fact that in the Rhine Army, because of the Bonn Convention, civil offences are tried by courts-martial. In fact, the number of convictions has been dropping. Perhaps I can give one or two figures.
Convictions were 17·6 per 1,000 troops in 1960, 16·4 in 1961, and 14·6 in the first quarter of this year. Even so, about two-thirds of all those offences are either civil offences or arise from absence without leave, and there is a predominance of that because, as the Command is so close to the United Kingdom, more people get leave, and, as hon. Members know, there is a fairly strong temptation to go back to the unit a little late. The movement of the figures is in the right direction, and it is a movement at a time when there is increasing concern, not only in this country but all over the Western World, about the high crime rates in various populations.
Quite apart from those statistics, my confidence in the discipline of B.A.O.R.


rests on the reports which I have received from the Commander-in-Chief and other senior officers who know the Rhine Army well, and I judge, from what we have heard in the debate today, that hon. Members who have recently visited B.A.O.R. would agree that, in general, there is no serious deterioration of discipline there.
It has been suggested that part of the trouble has been caused by our recruiting campaign, and that we have been taking in all applicants as recruits, irrespective of their character or history and that we have deliberately lowered our standards. There is no truth in this and the facts do not support this sort of theory. Our standards have been applied just as rigorously during the past eighteen months as they ever were applied before. In fact, last year, a year of great pressure for recruiting, we rejected more than 2,000 recruits on character grounds alone.
We are, of course, up against the practical difficulty which, generally speaking, faces all employers. We have only the man's word for his previous record in civil life. There is always a danger of recruiting some "bad hats". There has always been this danger. I do not want to join issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Critchley), who made a most interesting speech, but I must say that it is not right to come to the Committee and quote the sort of statement which has been made to him and which is not based on facts, and it is even worse that anybody should go to him with that sort of statement, of number of men in B.A.O.R., or in any unit, who have previous convictions; because I assure the Committee that there is no way of finding out what previous civil convictions a soldier may have, unless he is tried by a court-martial for that particular crime in military circumstances.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: rose—

Mr. Profumo: I must make this quite clear. Accusations have been made. It is a basic principle of British justice that when an employer is taking on somebody, he does not ask him about these things, and cannot get the Criminal Records Office to tell him. We in the Army should range ourselves with other

employers and the Civil Service and the other Services and face this. It means that we may take in some "bad hats" as well as good people.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain whether, if a recruit is suspected of having previous convictions, the Army would refuse to have him in the Army?

Mr. Profumo: That is what happens. It would not affect the hon. Gentleman's constituents, but it is what happens. When a man volunteers to join up, he is asked to say whether he has any previous convictions.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Suppose that he has?

Mr. Profumo: If he has and he says what those convictions are, then, if they are serious, he is not taken on. I have said that we would not lower our standards.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What are serious convictions?

Mr. Profumo: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what I mean. If the intending recruit signs a statement to say that he has not any previous convictions, and if he is the right sort of man and has the right intelligence, and so on, we take him on, and if he goes straight thereafter, why should he not be a very good soldier? What right have we, or the hon. Member, or anybody else to pry into his past?

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman is getting on fine, but he must not depart from the truth. There is an intervening process. When the man is asked whether he has any civil convictions and he says that he has not, he is also asked to give references. Then he arrives at the depôt and there is, or should be, or was, a period between his attestation and confirmation. That is where this has gone wrong. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that these references are taken up and that these inquiries are made, as an employer would make them if he were looking for men of high quality? Is the gap between attestation and confirmation sufficiently wide for these inquiries to be made?

Mr. Profumo: I should like to pursue my own argument because it was in relation to the speech of the hon.


Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that I took up this point. If we were scraping the bottom of the barrel, in the way which is sometimes suggested, to get these troops, by now there would be certain marked signs that this was happening. Yet, to give one example, of all those men who have been court-martialled for these much-publicised recent incidents, every one was recruited before 1960, that is to say, earlier than our concentrated recruiting campaign took place. If our recruiting campaign was allowing a lot of low-grade material, more than usual, to get into the Army, we could expect to see that reflected in a proportionate increase in discharges from the Army at a later period.
But this is not the case, although, as the Committee knows, recruiting figures have consistently and dramatically mounted in recent times. In fact, the number of soldiers discharged after getting through the recruit training stage has fallen below what it was two years ago, and this has happened at a time when the Regular strength of the Army has been steadily increasing.
Without going into details at this stage of how long there is between the time a man comes forward and when he is accepted, I can give the hon. Member for Dudley the undertaking that wastage, even at recruit training stage, has gone slightly down, although, of course, the number of recruits has gone up enormously. I quote that to the Committee only as a picture of the way in which things are going.
The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and, perhaps even more fiercely, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) have criticised me for the part which I have played in all this controversy and quite properly, for I am responsible. But perhaps the Committee will allow me to put things into perspective.
As the hon. Member for Dudley said, in the week before the Whitsun Recess there were widespread accusations in the Press that the Army was trying, and trying deliberately, as an act of policy, to hush up courts-martial in B.A.O.R. As there was no truth whatsoever in this, none at all, I felt compelled, in the interests of the Army, whatever the outcome might be, to explode this myth. In my explosion I did not act quite as

harshly as the hon. and learned Member did, for he said that he thought that all this ought to be referred to the Press Council. Although he criticised me for what I said, I wanted merely to try to tell the truth of what happened.
Thereafter, the Press became very agitated and there followed a great deal of publicity about the brawl in Minden, which had taken place early in April. I ought to say, in reply to the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson), that all the disciplinary action over the Minden incident had taken place and had been completed before this Press explosion occurred, and that it would be wrong in any way to blame the severity of the disciplinary action on the commanding officer having been frightened by the Press campaign. This happened before— except for a particular court-martial case in which there is a query, an appeal, which I should not like to go into as I am in a judicial position. This all happened long ago and was not done in the heat and burden of the moment.
Quite apart from the fact that, of course, all the disciplinary action had been taken already, I quite agree with the hon. Member for Dudley that it would have been wholly wrong for me to have attempted in any way to have intervened at that stage. These matters were for the Commander-in-Chief and supporting commanders. They were disciplinary matters and even though there was much public clamour at that time I had no intention of taking any action myself and I went away on holiday. This does not appear to me, to use the words of the right hon. Member for Smethwick, as if I was flurried and under pressure. I went away and I think that was the right thing to do.
I want to say something now about the television programme. I apologise for having left the Chamber for a few minutes during the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds). I have now seen for myself the I.T.V. programme to which he referred. I made a special point of going to see it. It has also been seen by a number of officers of Rhine Army. In my view, the programme was biased and also irresponsible. My Department has written to express its concern about it.


I cannot confirm or deny the reports which the hon. Member had from Minden about the way in which it was carried out. I cannot make comments on that.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is it the truth?

Mr. Profumo: I say that it was biased and irresponsible and I hope that the hon. Member will accept that from me. I do not know whether he has seen the programme, but if so, he would no doubt take the same view. I was away at the time and General Cassels quite properly agreed to see the Press and, in doing so, to put things in their proper perspective.

Mr. Paget: Surely it is the business of the right hon. Gentleman to be able to confirm whether or not a lady was used as a decoy and the other specific charges which were made in regard to this? Is not an inquiry being made? Are we not entitled to know that?

Mr. Profumo: The hon. and learned Member, being learned, knows about the legalities of these things. An inquiry is being carried out. It will go through the normal channels of an ordinary military inquiry into various accusations, which were made on that programme. If anything arises out of those accusations, and it is found to be true, proper military discipline will be brought into play.
The hon. and learned Member says that this is my responsibility, but I hope that he will not go wrong on this. It is not my responsibility. If any of those accusations were true and officers had been fighting— I want to be careful, because an inquiry is going on— and if any of these things led to officers requiring disciplinary action, such action would be taken.
It is also not my responsibility to be able to say whether a young lady was making certain statements in a "pub" at three o'clock in the morning. The whole programme started after midnight and was not filmed until three o'clock in the morning. Inquiries are going on. I did not make this accusation. It was the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. Paget: rose—

Mr. Profumo: I want to finish. I hope that the hon. and learned Member will allow me to continue.
One thing was perfectly plain when I returned to this country after a week's holiday. It was that there was some public concern in general about a matter which had not previously been understood, namely, our Army regulations, which had been framed only last year, which permitted soldiers to be out of camp all through the night. I ask the Committee to understand that information which came to me from all sources showed that there was mounting concern about the dangers to which soldiers in B.A.O.R. were being unwittingly exposed by being allowed to wander at will 'in the early hours of the morning. Soldiers' families were worried and the relatives of would-be recruits were obviously concerned. It became apparent that a considerable number of the cases where soldiers had got themselves into trouble since the introduction of our new system had occurred in the early hours of the morning.
At the end of June there occurred another and unrelated incident at Schneverdingen. There was one at Putlos, but I cannot give further details of that. On my present information it looks as though no Germans were, in fact, involved; if that is so there may be further disciplinary action arising out of that case. General Cassels and I discussed matters and decided that it would be a wise and sensible step to tighten up the rules a little at this stage and go back to our earlier regulations. There was no hasty action nor any question of punishment. It was simply felt that our experiment in freedom had shown more disadvantages than advantages for B.A.O.R.
The right hon. Member for Smethwick referred to a dramatic statement I made in the House. Normally speaking, this would have been announced from Rhine Army Headquarters, but I think that one thing has been forgotten. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton had a Private Notice Question on that day—when the House reassembled—about the latest developments in B.A.O.R. I did not feel that I could reply to it without informing the House of a decision which I knew was


to be implemented that very night. If I was wrong in doing that, I am sorry, but it seemed to be the right thing to do.
This has been called a new curfew, but it is not a new curfew. All we have done is to go back to the system which existed exactly a year ago and to bring our Rhine Army broadly into line with other armies stationed in Germany. As the Committee knows, it has been our policy to try progressively to bring the Army into line with civil life. In 1959, we removed the requirement for booking in and out of barracks in all commands other than B.A.O.R. The reason we did not do it there until last year was that we recognised that B.A.O.R. was a rather special case, as there are unusual facilities for drinking at late hours. In practice, the new regulations have not affected the average soldier very much because the normal man is usually in by midnight anyway. What appears to have happened is that we have exposed to temptation and danger just that element of the Army who are liable to get themselves into trouble.
Towns like Minden and Hilden have a lot in common with Smethwick and, perhaps, Northampton. The right hon. Member and the hon. and learned Member will know that very little goes on in those towns after midnight— at least I imagine that they know that. It is the same in these towns in Germany, with the one major exception that there are no licensing hours in Germany. One can go on drinking all night, and drink is strong and cheap. There lies the principal temptation for those who may be out without purpose in the early hours of the morning.
I am sure that commanding officers will be able to go back to the old system without any inconvenience to the average, decent soldier. A system of passes will be perfectly well arranged, but the way in which that system operates for corporals, lance corporals, sergeants, married soldiers and unmarried soldiers, will be a matter for the Commander-in-Chief as he thinks right.
There is this question of the difference compared with the Royal Air Force, Much play was made of this by the hon. and learned Member. I hope that he will look up facts a little more. He suggested that we are doing something

while the Royal Air Force is doing something else and that there will be fighting and bad feeling; but the Royal Air Force changed its rules in 1946. From that time onwards there was no impediment to Royal Air Force men going out all night and it was not until 1959 that the Army came into line. There was no bad feeling during all that long period when the Royal Air Force was, so to speak, out of step with the Army. Why should there be any today? There are far fewer Royal Air Force personnel in Western Germany than there are soldiers and generally they are not stationed, as the Army is, on the outskirks of large garrison towns.
I turn to the other main question, whether we are doing enough for the troops in Germany. The right hon. Member for Smethwick spoke about building and, of course, that is important. We want married quarters and I have no doubt that the right answer for the married man is to get his family out to him. Already, there are over 3,000 officers and 9,000 other ranks in married quarters. There are a further 200 officers and nearly 3,000 other ranks living with their families in Germany in other forms of accommodation. In fact, that is 76 per cent. of those entitled to be with their families.
The right hon. Member for Smethwick suggested—or I thought that he did—that perhaps the officers may be getting a better deal than other ranks. That may be so and I will tell the Committee why. Men are allotted married quarters on a points system which is made up of two main things, the length of time a man has been away from his family or length of service, and it stands to reason that the more senior the soldier, by and large, the more time he has served.
Hon. Members who have visited B.A.O.R. will, I think, agree that considerable progress is being made under the multiple hiring system. But there is a shortage of land and the German building industry is under very heavy pressure. Those are among the difficulties which we are having to face. We have provided about 200 specially constructed caravans. That represents a short-term bridging operation, but I can tell the Committee that those living in


what are really splendid caravans seem to be glad to take advantage of this way of being united with their families.

Mr. Reynolds: We ought to have 200 more caravans.

Mr. Profumo: I will go into that with the hon. Gentleman. It is not an easy matter, because hard standings have to be provided and a lot of other things and I do not want to start what might be called a "caravan Army". We will see what can be done, but we must keep a proper balance.
The aim for the single men in barracks is to try to get their barracks as comfortable as possible and to improve the welfare conditions. Already, we have done a lot. Last July, we started a special programme of improvements to barracks, embracing about 50 barracks and involving an expenditure of £ 2 million. I should like to assure the hon. Member for Paisley that the barracks of the Cameronians at Minden will be included in the programme and so will the barracks of the Lancashire Regiment at Hilden.
Boredom has been referred to and I can understand the effect of it. To deal with this is easier said than done, but I accept what hon. Members have said about the difficulty experienced by soldiers in B.A.O.R. in utilising their spare time. Every major unit has a junior ranks' club, which includes a corporals' room, a canteen, a tavern, a games room, billiards and table tennis. These clubs are usually run by members of the Women's Voluntary Service and anyone who has seen the clubs will agree that splendid work is being done. Good quality drinks are served at reasonable prices.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham referred to the sale of strong drink. This is, of course, a controversial subject, but I think it better to allow men to drink wholesome strong drink—if that is the right way to describe it—in a place of their own, rather than that they should obtain drink in undesirable places where although the drink is just as cheap, and just as strong, the conditions under which they drink and the company in Which they might mix would not be the sort that hon. Members would advocate.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does the drink include whisky?

Mr. Profumo: I should always include whisky, but not perhaps the sort of "whisky" which the hon. Gentleman drinks in his part of Scotland.
I have been asked whether we might try to provide good British beer. We used to provide keg beer, but for some reason the demand fell off. The N.A.A.F.I. is prepared to do something about this. When I go out to B.A.O.R., if I find that there are difficulties about these or any other matters, I intend to deal with them and to do my best to see that they are put right
N.A.A.F.I. clubs used to be very popular. I agree that they provide centres where people might gather out of barracks. But, curiously enough, the popularity of these clubs fell off and the financial loss was very heavy. For example, in 1960 one N.A.A.F.I. club took only £ 3,800 for the whole year and the N.A.A.F.I. made a loss of £ 3,500 on the deal. This comes from the "divi" which goes to the men, the rebates, so we have to be careful. But if changing circumstances in B.A.O.R. are leading to a new requirement for this sort of thing we must consider what can be done.
There are 40 cinemas in B.A.O.R. and the programmes are changed four times a week. There are two performances a day—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too many".] I am told that they are all very cultural films. I have been looking at the question of television. There are all sorts of difficulties in addition to the cost of providing a programme. Recently, I have put in motion a renewed examination of this project and we are following up all available lines. Although there are a great many difficulties I shall continue to explore the possibilities to see what can be done. I quite understand that if we could get more English television it would make a great deal of difference.
The problems are much the same in relation to live entertainment. Attendances at live entertainments fell off in B.A.O.R., but if I can get something going such as is required to meet the needs I shall be very glad. I have been asked, also, about female companionship——

Mr. Shinwell: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten that. He has been enumerating all the amenities and he has indulged in a certain amount of propaganda, to which I do not object. But can he now come to the pièce-de-résistance of the matter? What about the W.R.A.C.? Can he inject a large number of the W.R.A.C. into these centres? I think that that would solve the whole problem.

Mr. Profumo: I doubt whether I should be able to provide the kind of pièce-de-résistance which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.
There are practical limitations to the number of members of the W.R.A.C. who may be stationed in B.A.O.R. Part of the difficulty arises from accommodation and administration, and we have also been hampered by the fact that the numbers in the W.R.A.C. have been limited. I am happy to tell the Committee, however, that in recent months recruitment has considerably increased. Whether that is because of an expectation among the recruits that they will be able to go to places like Minden, I do not know. But, with the improvement, I hope to achieve an increase in the number of the W.R.A.C. who can be sent to B.A.O.R. in the coming months. However, there must be a limit to the number, because we must remember that Rhine Army is an operational Command and that only a certain number of members of the W.R.A.C. can be used.
The right hon. Member for Smethwick and my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Olive Bossom) spoke of the responsibility of officers. This is a very important point. I can assure the Committee that the Commander-in-Chief is very much alive to these problems. There is one lie that I must nail. It is not true—and this is part of the responsibility of officers—to say that the majority of the soldiers do not know what they are doing in the Army. That is an over-simplification and an exaggeration.
There will always be some soldiers, however well officered and wherever they may be, who do not know what they are doing. There will always be some soldiers who, when asked by Members of Parliament what they are doing, will rive answers which lead the Members of Parliament to believe that they do not

know what they are doing. Probably these men do know, but they enjoy watching the look on the face of the Member of Parliament. I want to stress that it would be wrong to believe that there is no purpose in the minds of soldiers in B.A.O.R. To think otherwise is wholly wrong and I do not want that idea to be allowed to continue.
One consequence of the sort of publicity which the Army has been getting in the last few weeks might well have been a drop in the number of recruits, and that would have been very serious, especially at this important stage in the build-up of our new all-Regular Army. I have, therefore, been looking at the figures with unusual interest and I am happy to say, and to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and other hon. Members, that so far no such ill-effects are apparent. I am sure, at least I hope, that by now if recent events were to have any effect, we should be experiencing the effect.
Last year, the total figure for recruiting was 25 per cent. up on 1960. This year, that is to say, by the end of last week, recruiting from civil life was 49 per cent. up on 1960 and 33 per cent. up on last year. Last week, there was an increase of 58 per cent. over the corresponding week last year. I hope that this information will be encouraging not only to the Committee, but to the Army, for it is the reputation of the Army which is reflected in the number of people wishing to join its ranks.
In B.A.O.R. we have a force which is unique in the military history of our nation, an Army over 50,000 strong deployed for more than seventeen years in a foreign country. It has changed from a conquering Army to an Army of occupation and then to a component in an allied shield. In this period Western Germany, too, has changed enormously. This vast enterprise, which we sometimes take for granted, is bound to creak and rumble a bit from time to time. There are bound to be more troubles as times goes on. One need only look at the local newspapers week by week to see that people in this country misbehave themselves and I therefore hope that hon. Members will understand if this sort of thing happens in B.A.O.R.
It is a great tribute to the Army and to its commanders that its standard of behaviour and morale is so consistently high. We, for our part, must do all possible to fortify and sustain these men in the task they are performing, not only for their own nation, but for the free world as a whole.

Mr. Gordon Walker: While we agree with a lot that the right hon. Gentleman

said in defence of the Rhine Army, we are still very unsatisfied about his conduct of affairs over the last few weeks.

I beg to move, That Item Vote 3 (War Office), which includes the right hon. Gentleman's salary, be reduced by £5.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 158, Noes 219.

Division No. 240.]
AYES
7.1 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Harper, Joseph
Parker, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Paton, John


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hayman, F. H.
Pavitt, Laurence


Bacon, Miss Alice
Healey, Denis
Peart, Frederick


Baird, John
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bence, Cyril
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Probert, Arthur


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hilton, A. V.
Proctor, W. T.


Benson, Sir George
Holman, Percy
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Blackburn, F.
Houghton, Douglas
Randall, Harry


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Reid, William


Bowles, Frank
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reynolds, G. W.


Boyden, James
Hunter, A. E.
Rhodes, H.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N


Callaghan, James
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Ross, William


Chapman, Donald
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, jack (Rotherham)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Crosland, Anthony
Kelley, Richard
Skeffington, Arthur


Crossman, R. H. S.
Kenyon, Clifford
Small, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Deer, George
King, Dr. Horace
Snow, Julian


Delargy, Hugh
Lawson, George
Sorensen, R. W.


Diamond, John
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Dodds, Norman
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Spriggs, Leslie


Donnelly, Desmond
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Steele, Thomas


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Lipton, Marcus
Stones, William


Edelman, Maurice
Lubbock, Eric
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Evans, Albert
Mclnnes, James
Swingler, Stephen


Fernyhough, E.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Fitch, Alan
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Thornton, Ernest


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Manuel, Archie
Warbey, William


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Marsh, Richard
Weitzman, David


Forman, J. C.
Mayhew, Christopher
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mellish, R. J.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Millan, Bruce
White, Mrs. Eirene


Galpern, Sir Myer
Milne, Edward
Wigg, George


Ginsburg, David
Mitchison, G. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C
Moody, A. S.
Willey, Frederick


Gourlay, Harry
Moyle, Arthur
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Greenwood, Anthony
Mulley, Frederick
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Grey, Charles
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby,S.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Oram, A. E.
Woof, Robert


Gunter, Ray
Owen, Will
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Padley, W. E.



Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paget, R. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Mr. Redhead and Mr. McCann.


Hannan, William
Pargiter, G. A.





NOES


Allason, James
Biffen, John
Brewis, John


Arbuthnot, John
Biggs-Davison, John
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Bingham, R. M.
Brooman-White, R.


Atkins, Humphrey
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)


Barter, John
Bishop, F. P.
Browne, Percy (Torrington)


Batsford, Brian
Black, Sir Cyril
Bryan, Paul


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Bossom, Clive
Buck, Antony


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bourne-Arton, A.
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric


Bell, Ronald
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Boyle, Sir Edward
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)




Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hollingworth, John
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Cary, Sir Robert
Hopkins, Alan
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Channon, H. P. G.
Hornby, R. P.
Pym, Francis


Chataway, Christopher
Homsby-Smlth, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Ramsden, James


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Rawlinson, Peter


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Cleaver, Leonard
Hughes-Young, Michael
Rees, Hugh


Cole, Norman
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cooper, A. E
Iremonger, T. L.
Renton, David


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
James, David
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Ridsdale, Julian


Costain, A. P
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rippon, Geoffrey


Coulson, Michael
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's &amp; S'th'ld)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Crawley, A. M
Kershaw, Anthony
Robson Brown, Sir William


Cunningham, Knox
Kimball, Marcus
Roots, William


Currie, G. B. H
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Russell, Ronald


Dance, James
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sharpies, Richard


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Shaw, M.


de Ferranti, Basil
Litchfield, Capt. John
Shepherd, William


Doughty, Charles
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Drayson, G. B
Longbottom, Charles
Smithers, Peter


du Cann, Edward
Longden, Gilbert
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Loveys, Walter H.
Speir, Rupert


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Stevens, Geoffrey


Emery, Peter
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stodart, J. A.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
McAdden, sir Stephen
Studholme, Sir Henry


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J
McLaren, Martin
Summers, Sir Spencer


Farr, John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fisher, Nigel
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McMaster, Stanley R
Temple, John M.


Foster, John
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Maddan, Martin
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Fraser, lan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maitland, Sir John
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Freeth, Denzil
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D
Marshall, Douglas
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Gammans, Lady
Marten, Neil
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Gardner, Edward
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Gibson-Watt, David
Mawby, Ray
Turner, Colin


Gilmour, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mills, Stratton
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Miscampbell, Norman
Vane, W. M. F


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Godber, J. B
Morrison, John
Walder, David


Goodhew, Victor
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Walker, Peter


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R
Nabarro, Gerald
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Green, Alan
Neave, Airey
Wall, Patrick


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Ward, Dame Irene


Gurden, Harold
Noble, Michael
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Webster, David


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Whitelaw, William


Hare. Rt. Hon. John
Orr Capt L. P. S
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)



Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wise, A. R


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pannell Norman (Klrkdale)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Person Frank (Clltheroe)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Hastings, Stephen
Percival lan
Woodhouse, C. M


Heald, Rt. Hon. sir Lionel
PickThorn, Sir Kenneth
Woodnutt, Mark


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Woollam, John


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Pltman, Sir James
Worsley, Marcus


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Pitt, Miss Edith



Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pott Percivall
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hlrst, Geoffrey
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Mr. Chichester-Clark and


Hobson, Sir John
Price, David (Eastlelgh)
Mr. Finlay.


Holland, Philip
Price, H. A. (Lewlsham, W.)

original Question again proposed.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1962–63

CLASS II

NOTE 1. FOREIGN SERVICE

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That a sum, not exceeding £ 13,305,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; for sundry services; and for certain grants in aid — [NOTE: £ 9,800,000 has been voted on account.]

Orders of the Day — BERLIN (SITUATION)

7.11 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson: We would probably all agree that a Parliamentary debate on the situation in Berlin is long overdue. But I make no bones about the fact that the occasion for having it this week is the fact that a considerable number of my hon. Friends and I have just returned from a visit to West Berlin. This was a visit of perhaps the largest party of Members of Parliament that has ever gone abroad. we were invited by the German Social Democratic Party, and I think that our visit enabled us to show the solidarity that we felt with the people of West Berlin at this critical time.
I should mention that we had full discussions with our colleagues in the S.P.D. and the Parliamentary leaders of West Berlin, and a long meeting with Herr Willy Brandt. During the period that we were there we inevitably saw a good deal of Berlin, including a brief visit to East Berlin— and we saw the wall.
Those of my hon. Friends who catch your eye, Sir Robert, will be able to give their impressions of what they saw and of the wall. We have probably all seen photographs, television films and descriptions in the Press, but to see the wall as we did, and as other hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have seen it, came as a real shock. Hon. Members who have seen it will agree — and although I have used this phrase before I make no apology for repeating it— that one has to see the wall in all its three-dimensional horror to appreciate what it means.
Various members of our party were moved by different aspects of it. There were the blocked windows, facing the West Berlin streets at the top storey and sub-basement levels. Perhaps it seemed rather worse to see, round the corner of a building going back into East Berlin, the windows blocked just far enough to prevent even the most athletic would-be refugee from leaping across the wall.
Others of my hon. Friends were very much moved at seeing the Church of Reconciliation, which had been a place of worship for citizens of East and West

Berlin alike, cut off from West Berlin by this wall, with the barbed wire and the armed sentries. Some were very much moved by two or three women of East Berlin who very tentatively and diffidently waved handkerchiefs to us, not quite sure whether the armed sentries would see them. In this localised sector of one divided city we have epitomised and dramatised, in drab, unfeeling concrete, the political division of the world in which we live.
Last December, when we debated foreign affairs, I said that the archaeologists of some future generation, digging up the relics of this wall, would probably find it difficult to produce a thesis explaining how it came into being. What they will have to explain is that, unlike so many of the walls in history — the Great Wall of China, and the walls in the north of this country— the Berlin wall was built not to keep people out but to keep them in. It was not a fortification or bastion; it was a prison wall.
One can well understand its impact on the people of West Berlin last August, and their demand that action should be taken. If the first reaction of some of us, fairly hard-bitten Members of Parliament, was a mad desire to drive a heavy demolition vehicle against it— and we we were only foreigners— we can understand the feelings of the Berliners who were divided from their own families, when they saw the wall going up.
In this connection, I was reported in The Times and elsewhere in terms suggesting that I was in favour of driving a non-existent 100-ton tank through the wall and suggesting that I was therefore in favour of a forcible solution. As many of my hon. Friends who were there will confirm, what I said was that if our first reaction was a desire to resort to some ponderous vehicle to knock the wall down, the restraint with which West Germans held back this natural impulse to take violent action was truly remarkable.
One of the first points on which we must comment is the restraint of the people of West Berlin and the leadership that they have had from Herr Brandt in this matter. I was told of a recent meeting of West German police at which, in the course of a speech, Herr Brandt referred to the fact that East Berlin policemen had been shot. This statement was immediately cheered by a


section of West German police, whereupon Herr Brandt stopped the cheering and said that that was not what he wanted. He said that he could never hear to think of one German being killed by another, and he reinforced his appeal to them for every possible restraint at this critical time.
I join with that tribute to West Berliners a tribute to the restraint and realism of British forces and their commander s during these very critical months. I cannot too highly stress that the need today is for calm in Berlin and a sense of urgency outside Berlin.
It seemed to my hon. Friends and myself that there are three problems— or, more correctly, three facets of the same problem. First, there is the immediate problem of the serious rise in tension which has developed in the past few weeks, especially with the shooting of East Berliners seeking to escape to the West. This creates a very special problem of acute urgency for all of us, for everyone knows—to use the fashionable jargon of our time—how a shooting incident across this brutal and unnatural frontier could be escalated into a far graver crisis.
That is why I welcome the proposals made by the three Western nations ten days ago for meetings of representatives of the four military Powers. Whether it be commandants, their deputies—military or civil—or some other representatives, matters not: such a meeting is urgent, and my delegation gave its full support to the proposals when it had a chance of making public comment on them, by Press, radio and television in Berlin. Putting it at its lowest, if there are two versions of these incidents—and there are—it is better to argue them out across a table rather than leave them to the dangerous arbitration of armed frontier police.
There is also the problem of easements of the present situation—easements to help the lot of individuals. For example, a proposal has been made that men and women of over 60 years of age should be allowed freely to cross to West Berlin to join their families; that children should be free to join their families, and that families should be free to travel across the frontier to see family graves in West Berlin. None of these proposals should be unacceptable to the

East Berlin authorities. The main purpose of the wall was to prevent the migration of skilled labour, technicians, and so on, and I do not see that any point of principle— if "principle" is the right word to use in this context— is breached if there is some easement to allow families to be reunited and to travel in that way.
Another proposal is that the police should be disarmed on either side of the wall for a given distance— a proposal that we heard referred to as the "100-metre Rapacki Plan". Here again, I should have thought that there was very great value in proposals of this kind.
I know that for many in the West, West Berlin particularly, these proposals would seem to imply acceptance or con-donation of the wall. There is no such implication, I should have thought. The wall is wrong and must go at the earliest possible opportunity, but that is no reason for failing to mitigate individual and family hardship as long as the wall is there.
Another proposal which was made many months ago—it has been made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, by myself and others—is the idea of establishing a special agency of the United Nations in Berlin. I hope that this will be 6strongly pressed by Her Majesty's Government and that it will be discussed with U Thant when he is in this country. It has also been suggested that it might be appropriate to establish a commission of human rights in Berlin. It was suggested in the debate on disarmament some months ago that this should be done when the new disarmament commission is set up, as we hope it will be, as a result of the disarmament negotiations.
I would make an alternative suggestion. I should like to see the F.A.O. established there, because that organisation is of particular importance to representatives of the newly developing countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America and elsewhere.
Since it is true, and I hope this will not sound cynical, that a great part of the great Powers' battle is the struggle to win acceptance of countries of that kind, I should have thought that to establish F.A.O. in Berlin, with regular visits to and from by representatives of the Afro and Asian countries, would be


extremely valuable, because it would be difficult for F.A.O and the wall to coexist in Berlin for long. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say that this is in the thinking of the Government.
I turn from the immediate Berlin problem to the second and third facets the problems of getting a viable solution to the immediate Berlin issue and the wider problem of co-existence and détente in Central Europe. Because there is a real danger—and this is natural and, in a sense, inevitable, but does not make it any less of a danger that anger and resentment should exist about the wall—that this may turn Westerners, above all West Berliners, away from the search for a basis of co-existence. I believe that there is a real danger that people, upon seeing the wall, say, "Co-existence is impossible." The lesson of the wall is not that coexistence is made possible or undesirable, but that it is all the more essential.
The fact that one has in Berlin the whole East-West conflict concentrated and highlighted in one divided city is a challenge and not an excuse for cynicism, defeatism, or uncompromising hostility to those on the other side of it. My hon. Friends and I have repeatedly made our position clear about the Berlin negotiations. We have said that there must be two non-negotiable conditions: first, freedom for the people of West Berlin to live under a system of society of their own choosing and, secondly guarantees of access going beyond mere paper agreements. Associated with these must be the conditions necessary to ensure the economic viability of Berlin.
These are the absolutes of a settlement. To get them as part of a package deal which incorporates them we should be prepared to show flexibility, especially, for example, by showing willingness to accept Germany's eastern frontiers with Poland and Czechoslovakia. We should also show flexibility in the matter of some measure of recognition of the East German administration as a purely factual arrangement pending, and without prejudice to, the ultimate reunification of Germany on a basis of free elections.
This is, of course, something which can be settled only outside Berlin. The

right hon. Gentleman will no doubt be reporting on the conversations which have been going on, first between Mr. Gromyko and the United States Ambassador in Moscow and, secondly—after the problem came to a head in Geneva —between Mr. Dean Rusk and the Soviet Ambassador in Washington. All hon. Members will wish the negotiations well, disappointing and slow though the progress so far has been. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will associate Her Majesty's Government unreservedly with these discussions and with the desire to see them speedily and fruitfully come to a conclusion.
There can, I think, be no doubt that divided counsels in the West could have serious consequencies. Last December, when I was attacking Her Majesty's Government for a lack of urgency over Berlin, I referred to the vital need for a N.A.T.O. Ministerial Conference and the imperative need to get an agreed Western line on Berlin. I said that there was some reason to fear that Her Majesty's Government had sacrificed this to getting allies to support the lonely position they had then taken up at the United Nations on the Katanga issue. Certainly a sense of urgency was not shown on Berlin at those talks.
Since then the attitude of President de Gaulle and some of the pronouncements of Dr. Adenauer have put a heavy burden on the United States. It would have been understandable had the Soviet Union played on these speeches and statements and asked the United States how far they were negotiating on behalf of their Western Allies. The American position was made extremely difficult by some of those statements, although I do not want to make too much of this. It can certainly be argued that Washington's clear pronouncement on Dr. Adenauer's speeches may have done more to create East-West confidence than anything for many years past.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) has convincingly argued, one of the features of the cold war for many years was the feeling that Mr. Dulles's one guiding principle in European affairs was to back the Adenauer line, right or wrong. Now President Kennedy's declaration of independence could be a great step forward and lead to greater confidence in


the negotiations. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will associate Her Majesty's Government unreservedly with the line the American Government took in relation to the difficult situation that was then created.
We must all recognise that the Berlin issue cannot be settled on its own. The Russians are realists and they know that the adverse propaganda effect of the wall is incalculable. If the West were to spend ten billion dollars and mobilise every public relations officer in the Western world they could not devise so powerful a propaganda weapon as the wall—and the Russians know it. At the same time, they know that East Germany's economy was in danger of bleeding to death through loss of skilled workers and technicians. Perhaps the real truth in all this can be summed up in a famous phrase of Aneurin Bevan's, who once said that the trouble was that the Soviet Union had expanded beyond her natural frontiers.
In the long run the problem is one of creating conditions in Central Europe which will provide the basis on which not merely the problem of the wall but the general problem of Berlin and West Germany can be solved. In previous debates we have asked the Government to adopt our proposals for a nuclear free zone and an area of controlled disarmament in Central Europe. We have stressed these proposals not only in the context of a general disarmament agreement, to which we think they are highly relevant, but also in the context of the Berlin situation. In one debate after another we have had no constructive reply to these proposals from the Government. We think that they could be a powerful solvent in easing the Berlin problem.
I have a fear—and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do something to allay it tonight—that the Government and certain of their Western allies have lost the sense of urgency they had last autumn over Berlin.
When we were threatened with immediate crisis, when Mr. Khrushchev's deadline overhung the situation, there was intense diplomatic activity and every sign that something was going to be done. Once that deadline was removed, Western statesmen seemed to heave a sigh of relief and lose any sense of urgency about it. Leave the problem

as it is, they seemed to say, no real harm is being done.
More recently, with other problems, with other sources of friction between Western countries uppermost in Ministers' minds—disputes about independent nuclear armouries, or about the precise means of achieving Western unity, arguments about the Common Market and the rest—with all these going on, one feels that Western leaders are perhaps in danger of becoming content to let the Berlin situation drift simply because they know that to press for a solution would add one more cause of friction within the Western alliance.
I hope, therefore, that we shall be assured tonight that this is not the position of Her Majesty's Government; for this problem, as all of us realise, could be inflamed to crisis level almost overnight, and if it were, the West would not necessarily face the new crisis with the unity and firmness which we all desire. Once again panic measures might be the order of the day. That is why we stress the need for urgency now. This crisis will not wait for ever. Nor, indeed, will the compelling requirements of the human tragedy which so many of us have witnessed in the past few weeks.
I hope that this debate tonight will be a signal that the resolve and the sense of purpose for which this tragically divided city calls will no longer be absent from the counsels of the West.

7.31 p.m.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: I am not quite sure why the party opposite has chosen this particular time to debate this particular subject. It has been debated fairly frequently in the House.
I realise that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) and a considerable number of hon. Gentlemen opposite have recently been in Berlin. I see no harm in the subject having an airing now, but I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that a solution to this problem is urgent, and I hope that he is wrong in saying that it could easily be inflamed to crisis level. It will not be inflamed to crisis level by any action taken by the free countries. I am sure about that. Anyway, we are having this short debate and I am sure that it will be a useful one.
I am the first to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is an important need for calm in Berlin itself, and, in the same way, for calm in this House When we are debating this subject. I am also the first to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the tragedy in human terms that one sees in Berlin more or less beggars description. I was there eighteen months ago and saw fantastic and stark contrasts between West and East Berlin. I am talking not so much of the standard of living, as the feeling one gets of the contrast between East and West Berlin. The stark feeling of despair and oppression in East Berlin compared with the feeling of freedom in West Berlin is quite startling, and one which one has to go there to really feel.
It is true, also, that what has happened to Berlin is a reflection of what has happened to Europe. We all know that nine countries which were independent prior to 1939 are now occupied by the Soviet Union, or are threatened with immediate reoccupation if they do not do precisely What they are told. When I say nine countries, I am not including Eastern Germany. That is simply one of the terribly tragic facts which we have seen unfolding since 1945.
What the Soviet Union has done in Eastern Europe is a cynical and grave breach of all her international obligations undertaken at Potsdam and Yalta and in the three peace treaties with Hungary, Roumania and Bulgaria. This is well known to us all, and anyone Who has any doubt about it, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Calne (Mr. S. Silverman) appears to have, had better re-read the Potsdam and Yalta agreements and the three peace treaties to which I have referred.
A small point occurs to me which I think is relevant to this situation. It is the danger of visits to Eastern Germany being misconstrued in this country by reason of the fact that the régime in Eastern Germany will, naturally, take advantage of any remarks made by hon. Members in a political context, or, for that matter, remarks made by members of another place when visiting Eastern Germany. It seems to me, therefore, to be of the greatest importance that when hon. Members go there on business they should stick to business.
I hope that this will be generally agreed between both sides of the House. This has not arisen out of the speech of the right hon. Member for Huyton. It is a point which for a long time I have wanted to stress. I think that some unfortunate remarks have been made in Eastern Germany, especially at the Leipzig Fair, which could have been avoided with a little more thought.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Huyton that the suggestion which has been made for many years, that one of the important agencies of the United Nations might be established in West Berlin, is a very interesting one indeed, and I hope that it is one to which the Government will give more thought. It may well be that my right hon. Friend will be able to say whether the Government agree in principle with the suggestion. I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman that perhaps F.A.O. would be the best of all. There is a good deal to be said for this organisation being in West Berlin. It is in Rome at the moment, and if it could move to West Berlin I think it might have very important political effects, though I do not know what would be the reaction of the Soviet Union to such a suggestion.
I felt sure that in speaking on this subject the right hon. Gentleman would get on to the question of disengagement. I am not denying that the problem of Berlin will be solved only in the wider context of Europe. I think that this is obvious, but there are one or two remarks which I should like to make about disengagement plans, because I think there is a good deal of misapprehension and misunderstanding about this subject.
We are often told about what was at the time known as the Eden Plan. I think that it was proposed in 1954, but I am speaking from memory. This plan put forward some kind of disengagement proposal. The word "disengagement" is a loose one, and means all things to all men, but a few weeks ago I looked up this Eden Plan which was supposed to have suggested disengagement. It seems to be overlooked very often that the Eden Plan contemplated some kind of disengagement after free elections in East and West Berlin, resulting in the reunification of the whole city, and after free elections throughout the whole of


Germany, under international supervision, resulting in a freely elected all-German Government.
It is true that the Eden Plan suggested that after all those things had happened some thinning out of forces might be possible but it is not true to say—and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will confirm this—that a Conservative Government have ever made any proposals for disengagement which bear any real resemblance at all to the Rapacki Plan or to the proposals made by the party opposite, and, in particular, by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), who, of course, has specialised in this subject.

Mr. H. Wilson: I did not refer to the Eden Plan. I do not disagree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman's interpretation of it, but surely he will agree that in the important discussions in Moscow in April, 1959, between the present Prime Minister and Mr. Khrushchev, the broadest hints were thrown out by the Prime Minister in favour of some measure of disengagement, and that it was that which really led to the right hon. Gentleman agreeing in principle to the idea of a Summit conference. I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not going to repudiate or disavow the encouraging proposals put forward by the Prime Minister at that time and later dropped owing to perhaps unfortunate pressures from West Germany.

Sir T. Beamish: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is in any way right in suggesting that the form of words used then, and about which I have recently refreshed my memory, could possibly be described as a plan for disengagement. The words were in general terms, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that they bear no relation whatsoever to the Rapacki Plan or to the proposals put forward by the party opposite.
I am certain that I am right in saying that. When the Rapacki Plan was put forward by the Polish Prime Minister it had the immediate blessing of Mr. Khrushchev, who said that it was a good plan. The plan put forward by the Labour Party was broadly similar to the Rapacki Plan, but arose from totally different thinking. Mr. Khrushchev has made it clear on many occasions that

any disengagement in Eastern Europe cannot possibly affect the political status —what he calls "the status quo" of the occupied countries.
What he would call "the Socialist achievement in Eastern Europe" cannot he interfered with in any way by any disengagement. In other words, the Soviet grip on Eastern Europe must be maintained. Many hon. Members opposite and the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) himself have given as one of the main reasons for their disengagement plan that it would hasten the day when the peoples of Eastern Europe would again be able to choose their own Governments free from foreign interference.
The starting point of the Labour Party for its plan and Mr. Rapacki for his plan are at opposite poles, both having completely different thinking. At the starting point for the Labour Party plan was the view of the late Mr. Aneurin Bevan and the hon. Member for Leeds, East that the drive and dynamism have gone out of international Communism. Remarks to that effect were made both by Mr. Aneurin Bevan and the hon. Member for Leeds, East. Although I wish I could agree with them, I cannot see any evidence that that is so.
Consequently, I draw the conclusion that disengagement along the lines proposed by the Opposition would have very serious political disadvantages. After all, if disengagement led, as is suggested, to a neutral Germany, who would insist that Germany remained neutral? Does German neutrality involve occupation? If so, by how many troops and for how long? That is the sort of question which the hon. Gentleman should answer if he is serious about his disengagement proposals. It is the sort of question which is never answered. Disengagement has serious political disadvantages.
It was suggested by the Labour Party at one time that the neutrality of, say, Denmark should be bargained for the neutrality of, say, Roumania, and that one might be able to extend the neutral zone wider and wider. The only people who can bargain away the neutrality of Denmark or Norway are the Danish or Norwegian people respectively, and so far as I know they have no intention of doing it.
The right hon. Gentleman again used the phrase "a nuclear-free zone" as part of his proposals. But this offends against one of the basic things which we have been trying to achieve in all our disarmament negotiations. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will confirm this. It separates nuclear weapons from conventional ones. That is something we simply dare not do. How many Soviet divisions are there in Eastern Germany? The last figure I recollect was 21, but I am told that it is only 20 now, though that is not very different. For all practical purposes Soviet troops in Eastern Germany are roughly the equivalent of the whole of N. A. T. O. 's forces in Western Europe. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head; this is true. The Soviet conventional forces would have an enormous military superiority in Europe if a nuclear-free zone were established as he has been suggesting.

Mr. H. Wilson: I beg the hon. and gallant Gentleman's pardon. I was shaking my head only at his misrepresentation of what I had said. I had referred to a nuclear-free zone and an area of controlled disarmament. I did not seek to separate nuclear weapons from conventional weapons.

Sir T. Beamish: But if the right hon. Gentleman speaks about a nuclear-free zone and controlled disarmament he is obviously offending against the principle by abolishing nuclear weapons in that area. Surely he can see that. He has merely confirmed what I have said. A nuclear-free zone means no nuclear weapons—though maybe controlled conventional weapons—in the area.
Another point is that the right hon. Gentleman's proposal involves inspection. I am all in favour of inspection, and so is the right hon. Gentleman. But it was only about a month ago at Geneva that the Soviet Union refused to discuss any further measures against surprise attack. We wanted that as a start for wider inspection and for its own sake. I am all in favour of it, but if the Russians will not even allow inspection to ensure that we have safeguards against the possibility of surprise attack what chance is there of disengagement on the lines which the right hon.

Gentleman has proposed? There is no chance whatsoever. Therefore, I regard the right hon. Gentleman's disengagement proposals as disingenuous, impractical and dangerous, and I do not think that it is worth giving serious thought to them any more.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Suppose one were to accept from the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the proposals were as dangerous and as useless as he seems determined to believe. What then follows from that? Is he then inviting the House to believe that the present position should go on drearily for ever, or if he thinks that some other move than this should be made, will he tell us what it is?

Sir T. Beamish: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting, I presume, that we should be making some sort of concession now in order to get some sanity back into Europe. Unfortunately, this is a situation that we have to live with. What concession can we make?

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The time is not ripe.

Sir T. Beamish: As my hon. Friend says, the time is not ripe. I wish it were. There is nothing I long for more than the day when the whole of Europe is free, when the Soviet Union is living within its own frontiers, when Poland can choose a Polish Government of its own, and so on. I wish these proposals were practical. It is because they do not seem to be practical that I think that another point of view on them should be put.
I am not trying to solve the whole of Europe's problems. We have to live with them and negotiate 'peacefully and try to find a solution. I do not agree that the time has come, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, when we should regard a solution to the problem of Berlin as urgent and that it is a situation which could very easily be inflamed to crisis level. It is useful to have a debate of this kind, and in my remarks I have simply tried to comment on some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Huyton.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) will


excuse me if I do not follow him directly. I do not want to permit the debate to expand into another repetition of our normal routine debates about Germany. The special interest that we have this evening is to concentrate on Berlin. Though I was not one of the delegation which went there and, therefore, I am bound to look at it a little differently, I want to follow on where my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) left off and deal with three questions.
The first question is: could we have avoided the wall? I think it is worth asking ourselves whether we could have prevented it being built. Secondly, the wall having been built, can we get rid of it? Thirdly, if we cannot get rid of it, how can we create conditions of coexistence in Europe despite the wall being there? I will deal briefly with each of those points and see whether we can come to any constructive conclusions about them.
It might be said that the first question is a historical one, but it is very much relevant to the present situation. One thing that the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes told us clearly was that he felt that this was the wrong time to negotiate. I would tell him that this has always been said. I would further tell him that it was being said just a year ago.
I took the trouble to turn up the debate on Berlin on 31st July last year, a very interesting debate to read. Many Opposition back benchers discussed the possibility, or the threat, of a wall being built. There was not a single reference by a Government spokesman, ten days before the wall was going up, to the possibility that the Russians would build the wall. We were told that it was the wrong time to negotiate. We were told that it was time to build up our strength. We were told that we were able to rely on our position in Berlin, and that all we had to consider was the possibility of Mr. Khrushchev's signing a treaty with the East Germans. I may have missed a sentence in the report of the debate, but I could not find a sentence warning of the danger of what some of us thought was bound to be done.
The last time I was in Berlin was on 13th August last year when I was staying in East Berlin and the wall

went up. I spent the previous week in Eastern Europe. I talked to Hendryk who is now, I gather, to succeed Novotny as head of Czechoslovakia. To any one of us out there it was crystal clear that the Communists were going to build the wall, because if they did not build the wall East Germany would collapse. My right hon. Friend made it perfectly clear that the wall was put up as the only alternative to the total collapse of the Communist régime in East Germany, yet the devastating fact is that when the wall was put up on 13th August it caught the West completely unawares. We discovered there were no plans for dealing with the crisis.
The terrible truth was that we were so completely unprepared that when the wall's erection came it was made into a gratuitous defeat of the West, with the frustrating sense that we could do nothing, which was a repetition of the frustrating sense that we could do nothing about the East German rising. I would have hoped that by now we would have learned a lesson from the fact that we stood by and did nothing throughout the East German rising, and from the very fact that we stood by and did nothing when the wall was built I think we have to draw a conclusion, and the conclusion is that, since we are not prepared to use military force to get rid of the Communists in East Germany, Communism is there to stay—which is a lesser evil than a world war—and that the wall is, for good or for ill, a necessity of Communist survival in East Germany.
I am sorry to say anything so unpopular as this, but I will explain why I hold this view. I may have seen the wall from the wrong side. I only wish that the delegation who saw the wall from the West side could have spent as long in studying it from where I was on the East side and from the point of view of the Communists in East Germany, When, perhaps, they would have found the wall looking rather different From the eastern point of view the wall completes the frontier of Communism. It is, in my view, impossible for Communism to exist with an open frontier, because if there is an open frontier people fly in their millions. If there were a gap in the


wall in Czechoslovakia, how many would escape? How many would escape from Hungary if they had a hole in the wall there? The terrible truth about Communism is that the majority, or at any rate masses of people, if given the chance, will pour out of every Communist State.
The one Communist State in the world with a hole from which people could escape was the East German Communist State. This is what made it unviable. It is true it had great economic difficulties, faced as it was with the over Whelming strength of West Germany, and the basic difficulty of East Germany was the fact that people in East Germany had the choice of leaving everything behind, taking a suitcase, paying a penny on the underground, and getting into West Germany—and it cost a loss to East Germany of 2 million people, I think it was, who escaped.
This gap in the frontier was exploited with the greatest skill by the psychological warriors fighting in West Germany. Speaking as someone who has been in psychological warfare, I can say that the psychological war operated from West Berlin against East Germany was the most proficient operation I have ever seen. That little half-city terrorised East Germany. It sent in its agents, it sent in its radio, it arranged its rates of exchange; every weapon was used to embarrass and to sabotage the attempts of East Germany to survive. This was the most successful anti-Communist operation, and it was done because of, and it depended on, that hole which it was able to exploit.
I may well be asked, why did not the Communists close the hole before? They did not because it was a great admission of weakness. That is why they did not close the hole. Much more important, to close it would have meant admitting that they had given up hope of reunifying Germany in a Communist State; it would have meant admitting to the world that two-thirds of Germany was going to stay free and democratic, and that was an admission which no Communist wanted to make who had the ambition to see Communism spread West. We felt that the erection of the wall was a self-inflicted defeat, but, of course, it was a major admission of

defeat by the Communists on a grand scale. It was a defensive action to prevent a weak régime tottering and finally collapsing.
Unless we are prepared to march into East Germany we are faced with the awkward fact that we have to assist that tottering régime to exist. That is what we have to do. The West German Government today are faced with an exactly similar problem. They are now faced with the frantic problem of whether they should or should not trade with Eastern Germany. If they do not there will be starvation in East Germany, and if there were there would be an East German rising, which they will not support, and they will stand by and see Germans mown down by Russians. Because they do not want to see that happen they have to face the terrible but lesser evil of having to assist and sustain an odious puppet régime.
All I can say to the Committee is that in the sustaining of that régime—it is the blunt and horrid truth—that wall is now essential. It is quite unrealistic not to face the fact that we cannot take that wall down without imperilling the régime, and we cannot take it down unless Germany is reunified. If there were reunification of Germany I could envisage the disappearance of the wall. If we are practical men we must realise that as we could not prevent the wall from being put up by negotiating a settlement a year ago so now we cannot destroy the wall without destroying the fragile basis of coexistence, which is very fragile and extremely tenuous, which exists in Europe today.
If we cannot take it down now we are left with the third problem— what to do about it? We can work for a system of co-existence, accepting that the wall has got to be there, as my right hon. Friend stressed, till we can get the ultimate solution of unification with free elections. We may still dream of that, although I have not much hope of its coming about in my lifetime. I agree with my right hon. Friend that one of the most important things we must not do is deceive ourselves. It is no good talking as though we can take down the wall or as though the wall imposes on the East Germans any greater suffering than the frontier imposes on the Poles, the Hungarians, the Roumanians and the Czechs.
All that has happened through the building of the wall is that the East German State has been made the same kind of completely Communist, closed State, with closed frontiers, as exists in every other part of Eastern Europe. I do not see why I should have any undue, extra feeling because the Germans suffer from that position than I have because the Poles, the Roumanians, the Czechs and the Bulgarians suffer from it; it is no less fair and reasonable that the East Germans, who are in an East German Communist State, should suffer the same conditions if they are to live under the same sort of régime.
I would point out that there are some very special reasons why East Germany must have an even stronger frontier than any other Communist State. One reason is that its Government is more unpopular. Indeed, it is certainly the most unpopular Communist régime in Eastern Europe, and that is saying a good deal. Secondly, by comparison with West Germany it is very weak. Let me give an analogy. Let us imagine that Canada was a Communist State, with its long frontier with America. Let us imagine that American television and radio was blaring out all along the open frontier that Canadians should come to a free America. How many people would be left in Canada after six months? The answer is that no one would be left and that it would be an arctic ruin; the whole population would have decamped into America if the choice were between staying in a Communist Canada and enjoying a democratic America.
That kind of choice is the choice of the Germans between East and West Germany, for the economic strength of East Germany is in roughly the same kind of proportion to that of West Germany as the economic strength of Canada is to the rest of America. When we have not only that great economic advantage but also the fact that the people belong to the same nation, we can see the overwhelming strength and attraction of West Germany.
It follows, therefore, that an enormous wall had to be built to try to hold people inside a Communist East Germany. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton was quite right when he said that the wall was there not to keep people

out but to hold people in. But if we are to have a Communist East German State, then it will have to have that kind of wall and that kind of totally planned existence. It is a terrible fact, but we must make up our minds not only to support the Communist East German State but even to help it to exist, because the alternative is the starting of World War Three in the centre of Europe when the East Germans rise in revolt and either we do or do not go to their assistance.
I have tried to put to the Committee the problem as I see it. I have done so as clearly and brutally as possible because there is a danger that we feel emotional about the wall and do not grasp its full significance. Again, I agree with my right hon. Friend that the main job which we have to do in advising the Germans is to make them face the realities. He was quite right; all our influence in West Berlin ought to be to persuade the West Berliners to collaborate with the East German Government, in so far as it is necessary to collaborate, to bring about the joining together of relatives and other humanisations which are possible despite the existence of the wall. The great mistake would be if the West Germans were to adopt the attitude adopted by the Arabs towards the problem of their refugees and to say, "We shall deliberately create a political problem and do nothing to reduce the tension". Everything must be done to reduce the tension on both sides of the wall, although it will involve collaboration—a collaboration which politically may be very unpopular in Bonn.
Secondly, it seems to me that we must remind ourselves and our allies that the time to negotiate about Berlin is when there is no Berlin crisis. If we always wait until there is a crisis, the chance of a settlement is virtually nil. One of the tragedies of the West is that when everything is fairly quiet we say, "We need not negotiate". We wait until there is an insoluble crisis and then try to rush a solution. Would it not have been wiser to have negotiated a Berlin settlement last spring and thus to have prevented the erection of the wall? Would it not have been wiser to have saved Berlin from the wall at the cost of recognising East Germany then, as


we shall have to recognise it sooner or later? By not negotiating last year the inevitable settlement, we are largely responsible, we of the Western Powers, for imposing the misery of the wall, which stands as a shame and a disgrace on the City of Berlin.
My second conclusion, therefore, is that now is the time to negotiate. I may be told that it is no good—to which I reply, very briefly, on Berlin, that I know of no subject on which the chances of agreement are greater, because I know of no subject on which the advantage gained by both sides by an agreement will be greater than in the case of Berlin. The reason is very simple. In Berlin both sides have positions of extreme weakness. West Berlin is not a position of strength. In the long run, West Berlin is a dying asset. As a result of the wall, the influx of young refugees, which was a source of vitality, has been cut off. It is an ageing city, and enormous sums constantly have to be spent by West Germany on it to give it artificial life. It is therefore not wise for us to bet on the permanence of West Berlin against the impermanence of Communism in East Germany.
But if West Berlin is a weak asset, East Germany is the weakest asset which the Communists possess. If they are sensible, both sides will recognise that because they both have their weak positions in Berlin and East Germany, there is everything to be said for an agreement on broadly accepting the status quo for the time being. We all know that the only basis for agreement has always been a de facto recognition of East Germany in exchange for Russian guarantees of West Berlin independence. That has always been the basis of the discussion, and it is the one piece of horse-dealing in Europe which I regard as having any chance of success, because nobody wants to risk a war presented by the present situation The present is a terribly dangerous situation, as the delegation saw for themselves. They would have seen it even more clearly if they had also spent four days in East Berlin and looked at both sides of the wall. It is a terribly dangerous situation in which sanity could produce a solution.
I must pay tribute to Mr. Kennedy. I think that the American President has shown tremendous courage in facing the need for a Berlin settlement, and in saying that there must be a settlement, in defiance of Adenauer and de Gaulle, and in strengthening the Russian confidence in him by having the courage to stand up for it. This country must back Kennedy's patience in persuading de Gaulle and Adenauer that, in the interests of the West and, above all, of Germany and of Berlin, a sensible understanding based on the status quo is something which we must negotiate in times of quiet. It is no good going on again until there is another crisis.
I therefore conclude where I started. Perhaps the best object lesson is to read the debate of 31st July and to observe the stupidity of the Government spokesman ten days before the wall was built, when there was still a chance of negotiation. The object lesson on this issue is that we must never stop having debates and urging negotiations, because here we know not only that we must negotiate but that a settlement is possible because it is in the interests of both sides.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: Unlike one or two hon. Members, I have not been to East Berlin recently, although my 18-year-old daughter was there at the time of the visit of hon. Members opposite, and she was able to give me a conservative, first-hand point of view on some of the very human problems which there are in Berlin at present. I find that I can agree a little more with what the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said now that he is the Opposition Front Bench spokesman for foreign affairs than I could when he was their spokesman for economic affairs.
I agree, too, with a view expressed by the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), when he said that the wall was there not to keep people out, but to keep people in. That is a very sound appreciation of the action of the East German régime.
I also want to pay tribute, as the right hon. Gentleman did, to the restraint of the West Berliners and to Herr Brandt in these very provoking circumstances. I agree that we should seek a meeting of the military representatives of the


four powers, with a view to trying to iron out some of the tensions and difficulties which exist and which are bound to arise in Berlin.
To try to get a movement of families would be very welcome. Whilst I certainly have not been able to agree with the Rapacki Plan in its entirety, as portrayed by the Opposition, I can see the wisdom of being able to disarm with peace on either side.
The most important factor in the present position in Berlin is the continued co-operation and unity which we have brought about, not only with the United States but also with our allies in Western Europe. I welcome particularly the close co-operation which we have been able to build up with the West German Government. As one who has attended the last three C.D.U. Party Conferences at Karlsruhr, Cologne and Dontmund, and who bakes an interest in Western Germany, my reply to Mr. Khrushchev's recent utterances, as reported in the Guardian today, is that those who see the existence of revanchist movements in Western Germany see perhaps but a reflection of themselves.
I agree with those hon. Members who have stressed that what is needed at the moment is calmness and determination on the Berlin problem. Surely it is not the existence of a free Berlin which is the threat to peace. The threat to peace is the bad state of East Berlin, the existence of the wall, and the shootings of children and, indeed, refugees after they have crossed the frontier.
With such tensions existing, clearly we must do all we can to reduce them. The question is whether we can find an acceptable basis of negotiation. For us, surely the essentials of any such negotiation must be the freedom of the people of West Berlin, the freedom of access to West Berlin, and the continuance of Berlin as a viable economy.
The Russians are trying to change the status in Berlin. Surely our rights there are established from our occupation rights in 1945, buttressed by the free wish of the free people of West Berlin. How can it help to hand over to the East German authorities, as the Russians want to do, the lines of communication and access from West Berlin to the outside world, to be completely under the

control of the East German authorities to cut off at any time they wish?
Surely we cannot conceivably abandon the West Berliners to the Communist world. If we did, the word of the West would be worthless to the uncommitted nations and it would be the quickest way of destroying N.A.T.O. I am sure that over Berlin that it is not the city alone which is at stake, but the good faith and purpose of the Western world as well.
After stating these essentials, I agree that we must do all we can to improve the existing situation. With the threat of nuclear war hovering over us, we must try to lower the tension and find, if possible, a modus vivendi.
I should like to see a committee of Foreign Ministers set up so as to get established the kind of committee which in the end achieved success over the Austrian Peace Treaty, a committee similar to the Disarmament Committee and similar to the Committee on Laos. We know that in dealing with the Russians agreements cannot be reached at once. There are far too many disagreements which we do not know about behind the Iron Curtain and behind the Bamboo Curtain. However, it would be helpful if we could establish some kind of committee to discuss these problems, not necessarily a committee of Ministers, but a committee of officials to get together and discuss the many problems which come up from time to time.
The experts of Britain, Russia, France and the United States should be on such a committee and be able to get down to the detailed work and report back on the explorations which have been made. For instance, the committee would consider the possibility of free movement within the City of Berlin, where such human misery is caused by the division of this great city into two parts. It may be necessary to have this apart from the usual meetings of Foreign Ministers, which, no doubt, can consider the broader long-term political problems, which time alone can solve.
Nuclear problems, the Rapacki Plan, and the necessity for an area of neutralisation in Eastern Europe are possibly better discussed at the Disarmament Committee or in the United Nations and not in the kind of committee which I


suggest might form a basis of getting at least a localised agreement on Berlin.
The immediately vital thing is to try to lower the tension. The Berliners have undoubtedly shown remarkable resilience and faith in their future. Whatever the hopes of the other side, I am sure that it is quite untrue to talk about Berlin as a dying city. Life is not running down in any way, nor is the population getting smaller. It is part of our duty to ensure that the faith that these 2¼ million members of the free world have shown in their Western friends is not betrayed.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: With much that the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) has said I agree, particularly with his closing words. I first visited Berlin in 1930, and my last visit was a week ago. I think that only one who has known the pre-war and the post-war Berlin can appreciate what an enormous change has taken place in that city. We went into East Berlin as well, but I had not really appreciated, before going to the city last week, that two cities are now arising where there was only one in pre-war days.
Those who do not know Berlin will not be able to follow the geography, so I will take this great city of London in parallel. One takes the West End of London, Hyde Park and Piccadilly, as a thriving, well-lit, well-employed and sparkling place. Then, from Trafalgar Square, for nearly a mile, one imagines almost complete destruction and devastation, and then, in the drab part of the City of London, another city is rising. A great no-man's-land of devastation lies between the two. That is a picture of Berlin at present.
I am rather disposed to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Grossman) that it is doubtful whether we shall see the two Berlins joined together again in our lifetime. I hope that we can find a solution to this great problem, but while we have this dialectical and ideological battle between Communism and the free world I rather think that the Russians dare not join the two cities together.
On the one side, there is light and freedom, and a happy people. In the

lake district of Berlin, we saw hundreds of thousands of people enjoying themselves. There were motor cars, and obvious signs of wealth, happiness, and good dress. In East Berlin, we saw drabness. The shops were almost empty. Nobody could look into them for more than three minutes without knowing that the consumer goods were not there. Life was drab.
In spite of all that, the effect of this wall is tremendous. Nobody who has not seen it, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said, in the third dimension can appreciate this horror. There are at least 15 miles of it——

Mr. Victor Yates: There are 28 miles.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Everyone I asked gave a different measurement, but even 15 miles of it is enough.
We went to one street which, in particular, was a street of desolation. It was a wide street, and it had once been busy. It was obvious that public service vehicles had gone to and fro, and there were lines on which the trams once ran. It was well over half a mile long, and the wall ran down its east side. It was blocked at one end, and the windows of all the houses on the east side were blocked up. The houses were empty. The other side of the wall was a no-man's-land, with East Berlin armed police patrolling between it and the barbed wire 50 yards, 100 yards, or 200 yards beyond.
We looked from platforms provided for the purpose. We saw faces in the distance, hundreds of yards away, peering out of windows. Screens are now being put up so that the East German people cannot even wave to their West German relatives and friends. Families are divided. On one side of this street, dozens and dozens of Germans of both sexes stood gazing, in the hope of catching a glimpse of a relative.
There was a silence in the street— an awed silence that one could almost feel. In the silence stood women, with tears running down their faces. It was a silence imposed by the shock of this inhuman prison wall. The silence there was broken only by the birds in the trees that lined each side of the street. I said to a colleague, "Here, only the birds


are singing." This monstrosity is an affront to human dignity and human decency. But there are grave dangers in this situation.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East said, this may strike through our emotions but we must keep stout hearts, and we must keep our emotions well under control. One thing that we learned to admire when we were in Berlin was the conduct and bearing —first of Willy Brandt, who stood out above all others, and of the ordinary West Germans in the street, provoked as they were daily by this horrible monstrosity. There are daily shootings of brave men trying to escape from their prison on the other side. There are deaths of young boys fired on in cold blood; hunted like wounded animals.
I have described this situation emotionally, as I saw it and felt it, because I want the Committee and the Government to realise that this is an explosive, emotional situation. It is amazing that it has not provoked more retaliation. When we have a situation like that, it is a problem which cannot be resolved by sitting still. It is an explosive problem. I disagree with the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish), Who said that it was not an urgent problem. I regard it as perhaps the most urgent of all problems, because at any time something may happen. Some action is an urgent necessity for the preservation of peace.
I call on the Government, out of this experience, not to treat this lightly, but to initiate immediately a conference of the four Powers who are responsible for Berlin, including the Soviet Union, to discuss this wall and its dangers. I have no illusions, as I have said, that the wall will be pulled down. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East has well described its purpose. It dare not be pulled down. It is there to keep these East Germans in. They would come out in their tens of thousands if they were allowed to do so. So long as it is there, and there are armed men on both sides very close together, there is danger to peace. When West German soldiers, who are armed, see young Germans swimming across the river and trying to escape, being shot at in cold blood, it does not acquire much imagination to see that this is a situation which might create a third world war.
Therefore, with the ever-present danger of incidents provoking retaliation, the Government should try to arrange with the Russians something that would take the tension out of the situation. One way of arranging it would be the kind of human exchange suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), so that people could visit relatives. This would relieve tension without the danger of large numbers of people coming out of East Berlin and further debilitating the East German economy.
In the Berlin situation generally, we must give our support to West Berlin. The wall is the urgent question, but as soon as possible we must make a peace treaty for and with Germany as a whole. Her Majesty's Government should give all support to President Kennedy and not tolerate the blocking tactics of Dr. Adenauer and President de Gaulle.
We should insist at the moment on the presence of allied troops in Berlin or, better still, of United Nations forces there, together with a U.N. institution such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation. The presence of large numbers of Asians and Africans in Berlin on such duties would help them, when they returned home, to resist some of the attractive propaganda which comes from behind the wall.
We must preserve the viability of West Berlin. We must insist on free access to West Berlin by land and air from West Germany, and give the West Berliners, who have shown such courage in such provocative circumstances, the right to choose their own future in freedom. That freedom we must never bargain away.

8.32 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I find myself in perfect agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen). He has had the good fortune to go to Berlin recently. It was my good fortune to go there before the wall was built. The human tragedies which he described and the differences in the standards between the two parts of the city existed then as they exist now.
I particularly echo what the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said in paying a tribute to the people of West Berlin, Whose patience seems to have been almost inexhaustible. In spite of


the many provocations which the hon. and learned Member for Crewe has described, and of which we are all fully aware, the West Berliners have behaved with dignity and courage throughout the partition of their city.
The right hon. Gentleman made a very interesting and constructive suggestion. He mentioned the possibility of the police on both sides being disarmed. I hope that the Soviets will take notice of that, but I am afraid that possibly they feel that they need their men armed to fire upon those trying to escape from East Berlin. But it is a suggestion which I believe that no humane statesman could refuse to accede to.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the possibility of humanising the situation a little by allowing elderly people and children to cross the border. There would be practical difficulties. It may be that many of the over-60s will also like to stay in West Berlin, so there is a practical difficulty. But if the Soviet authorities wish to show any form of humanitarian treatment, I am sure that they cannot fail to take cognisance of this suggestion.
The necessity for the wall has already been revealed. This is the completion of a structure which completely surrounds the Communist world, because that world cannot possibly exist unless it is sealed off, for the comparison between the two systems is too sharp. The very fact that more than 2 million people have left the glories of Communism and come to the West proves that the two systems cannot be compared.
When I was in Berlin, I took the trouble to see the refugees who had just come from Eastern Germany. They were from all walks of life, artisans and professional people. The extraordinary thing was that they had one factor in common. When I asked them, through the excellent interpreter provided for me by the British Government, I found that that one factor was not that the food was not enough, or that its cost was too high, or that they were not getting sufficient wages, but was freedom.
Everyone to whom I spoke had left the Eastern zone of Germany through West Berlin for the one reason— that he was bored with the régime which did not

allow freedom of speech and freedom of action. Many of them had found that it was too great a price to pay and they were willing to give up not only their family ties of affection in Eastern Germany, but, for many of them, what they had saved in the way of worldly goods, so far as it is possible to have worldly goods in East Germany— at least they were things which were important to them, their home surroundings and their environment. In one way or another they told me that in the West we had freedom and other things which they believed it worth giving up everything they had in the East to secure for themselves.
A practical suggestion today has been that the F.A.O. might be moved into Berlin. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will make some comment on this possibility when he winds up the debate.
It is unfortunate that when Members of Parliament visit East Germany for business reasons— and I make no apology for stressing something which has been said before— their opinions are sometimes misconstrued as being representative of a party or a political thought. Many of these trips are of a purely business nature, and people would be well advised to restrict their remarks to the nature of their mission, in these cases purely business.
The hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) said that we could not move the wall, and I have no doubt that nothing but farce could ensure its removal at the moment. But we have to impress on our allies in West Berlin and West Germany, that for the moment at least, they must live with and face that situation. Our job is to continue to support our Western allies, to continue to give encouragement to West Berlin.
The 2 million people in West Berlin are as much our allies as the people in the remainder of West Germany. They look to us for support and encouragement and I hope that we shall continue to give it to them. That does not prevent us from continuing— and I am sure that the Government will continue— to press for an agreement on Berlin, first, on the question of human possibilities so as to reduce tension even in the smallest way, perhaps developing that later. I think that all hon. Members will join with me


in saying that we want to remove the tension altogether, but every small concession will help to decrease it.
Whilst paying tribute to the West Berliners and Western Germany we have add to recognise that this is an explosive situation. We have also to make clear that any incursion on the part of West Germany into East Germany wild not be backed by N.A.T.O. and our other Western allies.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Victor Yates: I found myself in sympathy with many of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) except when he agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) in suggesting that the wall was there and could not be removed except by force. I do not accept that position. I do not believe that because the wall has been erected and is a fait accompli nothing can be done by moral power throughout the world to compel its pulling down. It could not be effectively pulled down by tanks and guns which would involve the world in war.
As one who recently visited Berlin with my colleagues I received a profound shock. Several times I have seen behind the Iron Curtain. I have been in East Germany and discussed with East Germans and with Russians the problems we are facing now in Germany. With my hon. Friends who went on the visit I saw a horrible picture from the military angle from the other side of the wall as well as on the Western side. I cannot help but feel, after having visited Berlin and other cities in Germany in 1946 when the whole country lay prostrate, a sense of horror that a line has been drawn and a wall built in such a manner as to make the possibility of a world war greater than I had thought.
I made several inquiries to be sure about the length of the wall and found that it is 45 kilometres, which I understand is approximately 28 miles. It is not only the length of the wall but some of the horrible features of it which cause me great apprehension. For example, watch towers are built in trees along the wall so that the military can watch and from which they could shoot. I was assured by people who have a great

deal of knowledge that there are enough bricks in the wall to build 10,000 houses.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East is not now present so that I could say this to him. I do not agree that because the wall has been built—and I regard it as the most ugly outward expression of war that I have seen for a long time—it must be accepted as permanent. I agree with Kurt Schumacher the former Socialist leader who said that the unity of Germany was more important than the armaments of West or East. That was his view just before he died. I believe that unless there is unity between the two sides in this country there will be danger not only to Germany but to the whole of Europe, in fact, to the whole world.
The debate has revealed, to me at any rate, that my right hon. Friend was correct in saying that the problem is urgent. I was surprised when one hon. Member said that there was no urgency about it. He has not experienced the feeling which exists in Berlin, although he said that he had been to Berlin two years ago, or something like that. On 19th July of last year the Foreign Secretary said that one false step could easily plunge the Continent of Europe into war. In October he followed that up by saying that one false step, one failure in communications, even one failure in comprehension, might mean war. I do not think that then I appreciated the significance of those words. It was not until I discussed the matter recently with Germans and saw certain things that I did appreciate the significance of it.
One fact which emerges from this situation is that shootings occur. I have argued with young Germans who have told me that they had not the power to retaliate in the way they thought they should. One can appreciate the feelings which are aroused when a young boy of 15 swimming across the strip of water which at one point divides one side of Berlin from the other, was shot at, and not only once—seven bullets went into his body. One can imagine the horror aroused in the minds of people in the West at that occurrence and by the fact that that kind of terrible atrocity can happen. The fact that a policeman in East Berlin can put himself into a good position to fire a fatal shot makes it


even worse. It does not improve the situation if a West German policeman shoots an East German policeman.
I am amazed that in this situation greater tragedies have not occurred. That several people have been killed in recent months is a stark fact. I congratulate the West Germans upon their restraint and patience. The Mayor of Berlin, Herr Willy Brandt has given clear indications of the circumstances in which West German policemen should shoot and I was astounded at the care with which these policemen carry out their responsibilities. The Mayor has said that it is difficult for a man to be a policeman. I was struck by the restraint among people who were working and going about their ordinary business even though these horrible things were happening.
The first obligation is to continue to urge restraint. We should continue to ask them to offer, in face of the world, a passive resistance to evil and wrong. I cannot see any justification for the East Germans shooting people who are crossing the water or trying to escape.
I remember being in the United States and visiting the worst prison here—Alcatraz. The governor of the prison said to me, "You know, I have been governor for nineteen years and not a prisoner has escaped from this prison." I said to him, "How is that?" and he said, "We shot five dead who were trying to escape and swim away." I thought that was horrible. I realised that, in this country, if a prisoner escaped from Parkhurst in the Isle of Wight, a feeling of horror would be aroused if there was an attempt to shoot.
I have opposed the rearmament of Germany, both West and East, and I have opposed militarism and conscription. I say with all the power at my command that this example of the use of force which we now see is a danger to Europe and a danger to the peace of the world. It is my duty in this Committee to condemn it, as I have condemned other forms of militarism.
I think that partition in this way tends to breed violent sentiments. My right hon. Friend is again correct in saying that there is a danger that people will be led to the conclusion that they must

take action which might lead to war. This situation produces violent sentiments and distress, and therefore it is a danger to understanding. I think there is a Latin phrase which we often use to the effect that those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad, and to tell the Germans to be patient and to exercise restraint, though very difficult, is very necessary in the present situation.
I have found no evidence that the Germans, the British or the Russians want a war, but war is not prevented just by people not wanting war. As I have said before in the House, wars can come about by accident. Sometimes nations stumble into war. These are the dangers—and I can only hope and pray that the words of the Foreign Secretary still ring true today—that one false step, one failure, might lead to it. This is what makes the situation urgent and makes it essential that we should try to take some action to prevent war.
What can this House of Commons do? I believe that the more hon. Members visit Germany, both East and West, the more they discuss with Germans and the more they bring our point of view to bear, the better it will be. The more we can see of what is happening, the more we will be able to assist them. I agree, however, that we have to do more than that. Our Government must realise that this situation, which has now been going on for months, is one that should receive the closest consideration in order to discover the kind of initiative which the Government could take.
I agree that some action should be taken to bring together the four Powers to discuss the matter. I was surprised to read in the newspapers that Herr Ulbricht of East Germany was not prepared to have discussions. We must bring to bear all the pressure we can not only upon the East Germans but upon the Russians, who are at the back of this—make no mistake about it. If Mr. Khrushchev came out firmly in this matter the East Germans could not move in this way. Our duty, therefore, is to embarrass the Russians in this situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East said that this wall was a great embarrassment; that the Russians had tried to fill up a hole, and that this was really the only way they could do it. I


do not accept this. If that is what the Russians are seeking, they are acting in a most unintelligent manner. Usually they propose something more intelligent than that. We cannot stop people merely by building walls. People will sacrifice their lives in order to join their families. Why cannot they be allowed to worship God in the same church?
Why should we have the Holy Trinity Church—the church where East and West Germans used to worship God together—bricked round? Why should we permit this without a moral protest throughout the world? I do not believe that the Russians feel happy about this position. The more unhappy that we can make them feel, even by our speeches in the House of Commons, the more we shall make them feel that this is not the right solution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East talked about the refugees. He said that 3½ million had left the East in order to go to West Berlin. Is that not an indictment of the system? Because they have built up this wall by force it does not mean that we must accept it as a fait accompli.

Mr. Crossman: I apologise for being out of the Chamber during my hon. Friend's speech, but what I was pointing out was that the creation of a frontier across which no one could pass was not unique in Eastern Germany. I said that this applies to every Communist country, and that all that happened when the wall was constructed was that East Germany was given a frontier like the frontiers of Russia, China, Poland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Roumania and Bulgaria. That is all I said. I did not say that I approved of it. I said that if we wanted to co-exist with the Communists we had to co-exist with frontiers of that kind, and that it was quite unrealistic to think that we could get this frontier changed without changing other frontiers in Eastern Europe.

Mr. Yates: I do not agree. The problem is rather different. This frontier has been recognised as being the one over which a world war could begin. Therefore I do not agree that because the wall has been built we must accept it as a fait accompli, and must negotiate on the basis that it is there and that it will continue to be

there, and that the unity of Germany will never be restored. I do not agree that walls of this kind last for ever. We are told in the Scriptures how the wall of Jericho fell as a result of faith. There is much that we and others in the counsels of the world can do to bring pressure to bear for the wall to be removed.
Surely this problem should be taken to the United Nations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Wilson) mentioned the establishment of a human rights commission in Berlin. Why should that not be done? The facts of the atrocity in terms of human deprivation as a result of the wall are outstandingly dangerous and should be discussed by a human rights organisation and the United Nations. They should be discussed whenever and wherever possible so that the world can see exactly what is happening. For my part I can never remember reading of a situation like this or a wall of this type.
I want peace and freedom. The great majority of people in this world want the same. But peace can spring only from the greatness of people's affection, one for the other, and not from their armies. I salute the people of Berlin and their passive resistance to evil. I hope that they can be persuaded by our moral support and power to remain passive and not to shoot. They require moral support and courage to do this. Let us give them that support, at the same time telling the East Germans just what we think of the method they have adopted to retain people in that part of Germany.
There must be a way of bringing the two sides together so that peace and freedom can prevail. The only alternative to finding such a method is a third world war, which we all wish to see avoided. This has been a vital debate and I hope that time will be found so that more hon. Members can take part in an even wider discussion of this issue. I should like to see far more visits paid to Germany so that the world in general can, at first hand, see the wall. I am sure that, in the end, it will collapse, not as a result of the activities of tanks but as a result of the moral power of the world.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I intervene for only a few moments, with some diffidence, because, contrary to the normal courtesies of the House, I was, for binding reasons, unable to be present during the opening stages of the debate and appreciate that it is not normal for an hon. Member to venture to speak in these circumstances.
I am not by any means the only hon. Member who has been impressed by the first-hand accounts and impressions given the House by hon. Members opposite who, as we know, have recently returned from this unfortunate city. While I have been fortunate to have been there, I confess that I have nut had an opportunity to visit the city since the wall was constructed and it has been helpful to hear the first-hand impression of hon. Members opposite.
Having returned, many of them have expressed the view that this is a matter of great urgency. They consider that their visit has made profound impression on them and that there is no time to lose.
Without, I hope, in any sense being unsympathetic to the spirit of that point of view, or being unsympathetic to those in West Berlin who are living under these intolerable conditions, I venture to express a point of view. It is very easy, when one goes from this House to other places, to get a little too close to the canvas. I came back from West Berlin emotionally deeply stirred by what I saw of the plight of those living there. I am sure that at that moment, in so far as I ever had the ability to do so, I was not in a fit state to pass a cool and calm judgment on what our policy ought to be on this aspect of our foreign relations.
That applies to West Berlin today. That is why I offer a thought or two on the subject. Frequently, when I have been lucky enough to catch the eye of the Chair, I have stressed a view which I have long held, that when we are negotiating with the Russians we are negotiating with people who have an essentially Eastern mentality, and not a Western one. I think that we make a grave mistake if we look on them as essentially Western people. An Eastern person has, par excellence, the ability to

wait, to take plenty of time. At the absurd end of the scale, this is exemplified by the Eastern bazaar. No self-respecting person would dream of paying the first price that is asked in an Eastern bazaar. No sensible bargainer would dream of making his bargain quickly.
While I use that flippant, light-hearted example of the kind of attitude that I have in mind, I stress what I feel strongly, that the Russian Government have the mentality to wait, and the ability to resist the pressures which would otherwise make them make haste. In this House many of us on this side, and some hon. Gentlemen opposite, are constantly urging action on the Government. This is a proper exercise of our rights, and it is being done today.
We can—and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) wanted us to—embarrass the Government. The hon. Gentleman also spoke about embarrassing the Russian Government in respect of the wall. This is an attractive idea, but I could not help smiling gently to myself, because, sitting immediately behind the hon. Gentleman, was the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). I thought how nice it would be if the Russian Government could be embarrassed by the arrival of the hon. Member for Vladivostock doing what the hon. Member for Orpington did, at any rate for a little while.
Recapitulating, first, by temperament the Russian Government have the ability to wait. Secondly, they have the equipment to stifle the forces which, in a democracy, quite rightly and constantly press the Government to do something. When my hon. Friend the Minister of State, or other Ministers, in the proper exercise of their duty, sometimes venture to caution us not to be pushed into making haste, it sounds dull, dreary, and at times unsympathetic to the sort of strong appeal to which we listened a moment ago and which strikes a warm chord in many hearts, but the reasons that I have given account for their attitude.
I have also found that in West Berlin there are two things which are negotiable. We have a strong interest in negotiating about one thing in particular. I am referring to access by land


to West Berlin. It is astonishing to think that there is no written record of an agreement for access by land to West Berlin, except the minute written by an American major the day after a tripartite meeting. By contrast, American rights over the British zone are recorded in every detail, and it is, therefore, astonishing to reflect on the respective attitudes of mind with which we ended the war.
It might have saved a great deal of trouble if there had been a carefully written agreement on access by land. We do not give anything away or weaken our case when we say that it is in our interests to get rights of access recorded clearly. It would be very valuable if they could be in some sense physically guaranteed. This should be brought up at any negotiations that we may negotiate. This is something that we have from our side which is plainly in our interests.
I have believed for a long time that the Russians, too, have an interest here. The East German puppet State cannot be an easy one to handle. We tend to forget how the Russians fear the Germans. It is a deep-rooted fear. I do not think that many of us have made nearly sufficient allowance for this in negotiations with the Russians. One cannot talk very long to a Russian without becoming aware that this fear is very deeply rooted in him. Thus, the Russians may have a direct interest in doing precisely what the hon. Member for Ladywood would like us to do, which is to reduce the tension and remove the possibility of an explosion caused by Russia's agents in East Germany.
As hon. Members have well and clearly said, so long as this physical situation exists there is always the possibility of error and misunderstanding and of young, hot-headed policeman firing a thoughtless shot, resulting in the whole process starting without it being possible to control it. Therefore, the Russians have just as much interest as we have in reducing that situation. They certainly do not want war; there is no question about that.
Consequently, I take enormous encouragement from the contacts that we have been reading about between the Russians and the Americans at ambassadorial and Foreign Minister

level. One does not know how they will be taken up now that Mr. Dean Rusk is back in America, but these we have, I hope, contact between the two sides on the problem which has exercised the minds of hon. Members tonight. I do not believe that we shall be able to get a limited settlement on Berlin—I do not believe it will be anything very fundamental—without moving some significant way towards recognition of the puppet régime.
I dislike that régime as much as any other hon. Member. I cannot say that I have ever been impressed by the principal reason that we have so often put up for not dealing with it, which is that it is not democratically elected but a puppet Government imposed on the East German people. I am well aware that my West German friends feel strongly about this and that before the elections no West German politician of any party could tell his electorate that the West German Government or Opposition party should deal with the East German puppet régime. I appreciate those things. But facts are facts. The East German puppet régime is the effective "front" Government of that country.
The hon. Gentleman was right in saying that the Russians stand behind them and that unless one deals with the Russians one is not being effective. That is unquestionably true. But the East German puppet Government are the legal authority there. I believe that at some stage, as part of a package deal, certainly not conceded without something very much from the other side which I have attempted to indicate, we shall have to move in that direction.
I note with some considerable anxiety the preparations for building a similar wall on the border between the City of West Berlin and East Germany itself; that is, an outer wall. [An hon. Member: "It is there now."] It is actually there? I did not appreciate that. With respect, I think that it is not actually built, but that there has been talk of preparations. Anybody who has ever walked round that frontier, as I have, and as other hon. Members have, will konw how complex it is. It is a complicated boundary. It is the municipal boundary of the City of Berlin, with many intricacies, such as those of a


ward boundary in one of our own cities. Such a wall would create the most appalling dislocation in the lives of those who live around that boundary, and it is an extensive area. To add yet more possibility of extension of the difficulties of the kind so eloquently described, must be deplored.
I suppose that it must be accepted that we cannot physically stop it. I do not think that any of us would wish to propose actually taking it down, or attempting any physical action, but we in this country should make the strongest possible propaganda use of what has happened and what is foreshadowed. I do not think that we in this country are very good at that, because we find the use of propaganda machinery singularly distasteful. As a nation we are not anything like good enough at seizing opportunities which so often present themselves.
I wanted to intervene for only a few moments, without any suspicion of lack of sympathy with those who have spoken or with those living there, to plead for standing back a little from the canvas and taking, if necessary, time for negotiations, so long as probings and soundings go on all the time. I am not suggesting no action. I am only suggesting a different kind of action, and a calm realisation that it is a long road we have in front of us. Meanwhile, nothing but good, I should think, can come from the unanimous appreciation of both sides of this Committee of the dignity and restraint which the West Berliners show in the most dreadful tragedy ever to have befallen a modern city.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I can well imagine that if there is anything like a full Press report of the speeches made in this debate there will certainly be many of our fellow countrymen and women asking themselves, "Why do Members of Parliament want to bother themselves about the position in Berlin, whether West or East Berlin?" feeling, as so many of them do, that we are isolated and exclusive from them. Therefore, I believe that it may be a good thing to record what some of us at any rate see as a reason why we should show our interest in what is happening there.
If I were asked to give my own reason for it I would say that as we are one of the occupying Powers there, with both nights and responsibilities, then as long as we have those responsibilities we must have some regard to the well-being of the people in that city.
I am sure that, when we decided to approach the Government to have a debate on this subject, the intention was that it should be a constructive debate, essentially with the idea of trying to make a contribution towards a reduction of the tension to which so many references have been made on a number of occasions by hon. Members, especially those of us who were in Berlin recently. If, as a result of what we have said, there has been any encouragement to the Government to make fresh approaches along whatever lines they think most likely to yield results, perhaps the debate has been worth while.
I have every possible respect for the Minister of State, who has a Foreign Office commission to perform. He has already strived, and will continue to strive, to do everything in his power to secure some agreement not only over Berlin but over the wider issues, about which I will say a word in a moment. He must try to live up to his reputation. I remember driving through his constituency shortly after the last election, on my way to Grimsby, and I saw what we know as fly-bills pasted around almost every telegraph pole in his constituency, "Vote for Honest Joe Godber". Perhaps it was not an inapt description. We have come to regard him as one who will at all times use his best endeavours to secure anything which he thinks desirable. We are trying to commend to him the possibility of redoubling the efforts which he has already made to achieve some relaxation of the tension in Berlin—which is about the most for which we can hope for the time being.
I was about to refer to at least one observation, and possibly two, made by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish), who is not now in his place. There were some aspects of his speech which I thought were perhaps a little unfortunate. I feel that this is not one of those occasions on which we should necessarily try to form our judgments on military considerations. I


do not believe that we shall ever secure an easing of tension either in West Berlin or between East and West Germany simply by totting up in figures the number of tanks which each side possesses or the number of hydrogen bombs or the number of men they have massed on the frontier.
Here I find myself in slight disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). I was surprised to discover towards the end of his speech that I agreed very largely with him, because when he began I thought that I should find myself in rather violent disagreement with him. As he developed his speech I began to appreciate the argument which he was advancing. Nevertheless, I do not share his views that sentiment and emotion play no part in this sort of thing. Probably the greatest obstacle to achieving agreement is the cold calculated and logical argument of which my hon. Friend is a very able exponent to almost the entire exclusion of emotion or sentiment, which usually betray the innermost feelings of the people who are concerned. If much more of these emotions and this sentiment were shown in the counsels of the nations, and there were less argument about the logical considerations which are so often taken into account, I think that much more progress would be made.
I feel that it is no part of our responsibility to talk in what I call provocative language about this situation. Many of us could be 'probably highly critical about the régime in East Germany. There may be those who would even be critical of the régime in West Germany, if not in West Berlin. Where would that get us? It would probably only exacerbate the feelings which are already prevalent.
I shall have to omit some things which I wanted to say. In the few minutes remaining to me I want to re-emphasise what I believe to be the main points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), with the idea of offering to the Government some ideas which may be considered in any approaches which might be made. The most difficult thing for us is to abolish fear and suspicion. Suspicion plays a tremendously important part in all this. I do not know how

we shall do this. There is something in my right hon. Friend's suggestion of trying to bring about the disarmament of at any rate the frontier police in both zones.
Tributes have been paid to the conduct of the West Berliners and to the influence exerted over them by the Mayor, Willy Brandt, and all the members of the Senate. Berlin at the moment appears to he a city of gaiety to the visitor. The people are well dressed. They seem to be enjoying themselves. There is over-full employment. They cannot get enough people to perform all the jobs in industry. There is an atmosphere of general well-being. However, anyone who talks to the Berliners soon discovers that there is not a feeling of well-being. There is a tenseness. There is a fear lurking beneath the surface. The Berliners make this very apparent to anyone prepared to talk to them. They say how glad they are that the occupation troops are there, although the troops are, technically speaking, only tokens.
I wonder to what extent the feeling of tension will be exacerbated if, as is reported in the Press, a wall is built around West Berlin. How long will the West Berliners remain tolerant in the face of any new threat of this kind? They have remained quiescent so far and listened to the exhortations of their leaders. I have tried to put myself in their position. I have wondered what the reaction would have been if this sort of thing had happened in London. I could not imagine any section of the British people watching the wall being erected without trying to pull it down. I do not think that could happen in this country. It was possible only with a nation so completely disciplined as the Germans are to keep them patient and tolerant in these circumstances.
However, there are murmurings. It is no use hiding this. The West Berliners are now beginning to say a few critical things about the fact that they were restrained when the Communists started building the wall on 13th August. I believe that we shall have to recognise, as the Berliners themselves recognise, that this problem does not concern them only. The people of Berlin recognise that there is a larger problem which must be resolved before they will make any breaches in the wall. We shall


have to find a formula making it possible for there to be co-existence between East and West Germany.
I hope that the Government will note the suggestions that have been made about the possible neutralisation or demilitarisation of the area as a contribution to the solution of the West Berlin problem, but that does not mean that we should not make all possible effort to secure some relaxation if nothing else is possible. It has been suggested that we might first encourage conferences between the allied commanders on the spot, but I believe that it would be better to bring about meetings at some Foreign Office level, which would carry more political authority. I hope that the Minister of State will assure us that no effort will be spared to find a solution of this awful situation.
There is much that I should have liked to have said about the symbolic effect of this wall—because it is symbolic of the segregation of the German nation. From a military or strategic point of view, the wall could be pushed over in seconds; it has no military value. It is symbolic of an attitude of mind towards Berliners and West Germany, and it is that attitude that has to be overcome. If the hon. Gentleman can tell us tonight that efforts will be redoubled, and that there will be an attempt to reopen negotiations to search for a solution, he will earn the gratitude of the Committee, and he will certainly get every possible help from all those of us who have had recent experience of the present outlook of the Berlin people.

9.32 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. J. B. Godber): In the short time at our disposal we have had a very useful and interesting debate, and I shall try in due course to deal with the various points that have been raised.
First, I must thank the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) for his all too kind opening references to myself personally. I assure him that the slogan referring to me on the posters he saw, I did not invent; it was given to me by my constituents. I would not have deemed to try to rise so high.
This debate has, perhaps, been almost unique in the unanimity of view amongst practically all speakers. It has been

notable, too, for the particular sense of deep feeling, and even of emotion, that some hon. Members, on the other side particularly, have displayed following their visit to Berlin and seeing the dreadful problem confronting them there.
I found myself in agreement with a very large part of what was said by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). He chose to split the subject into three categories, and I shall later try to emulate him, so as to simplify the way in which it can be defined and in which we can seek a solution.
I want to touch very briefly on the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), who always causes us to think, even though we may not agree with much of what he says. On this occasion, I tried to follow his argument very closely and I must admit that I was puzzled at one stage. He had described very graphically the reason for the building of the wall and the need for it because, as I understood, he argued that every Communist State must be completely sealed off and could not stand freedom of access to a free country. He put that forward most vigorously.
At a later stage, the hon. Member went on to say that, in his view, we could have had an agreement a year ago and he gave us the terms on which he thought it could have been reached. He said that if that had happened none of these problems would have arisen. I did not follow that, because it would still have been a Communist State. Even if there had been an agreement, if he thinks that there could not be a safety valve in a Communist State. I do not see how it could be argued that the wall would not have been erected.
The hon. Gentleman reminded us of the debate last year, on 31st July. I tried hurriedly to refresh my mind in view of his advice. I have looked through a number of speeches in that debate and I cannot find that all that number of his hon. Friends were warning us that there would be this building of a wall or something similar. It is quite true that the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) made some references, but they were very limited ones. Other hon. Members took a very different view. Indeed, I saw that the


hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird) took the view that the flow of people was just as much from the West to the East as from the East to the West.

Mr. Crossman: I was trying to point out that while Front Bench speakers completely ignored the problem, it was referred to with greater emphasis by two hon. Members from the back benches behind him. The hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) made a most remarkable speech. I was pointing out the contrast between those back benehers whose eyes are not blinded by official documents and the Front Bench speakers who, thanks to the Foreign Office, can seldom see anything of what is going on.

Mr. Godber: I will leave the last comment where it can safely lie. I am glad that the hon. Member has qualified it, because I thought that he was talking about h s hon. Friend. If he refers to my own speech in which I wound up the debate, I made the point that we had three requirements which were essential and that
… We were willing to meet round the table and discuss these matters with the Russians."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st July, 1961; Vol. 645, c. 1093.]
But I added that we insisted on three essentials. They still exist. The position is very much the same as it was then. I thought that it was only right to make the point that the position has not changed materially in regard to the sort of terms on which we could make some agreement. Indeed, the basic position is, we must recall, that the Berlin situation is abnormal solely because the Russians have chosen to make it so—and have been trying to squeeze the West out ever since 1948. It exists as a problem because they have refused self-determination and the consequent reunification of Germany as a whole.
If it were not for that this problem would not exist. The whole of Berlin might have been under the four-Power Kommandatura which existed earlier, but the Russians chose unilaterally to withdraw from their own sector and gradually build up difficulties which culminated in the erection of the wall. This has been so graphically described

by many hon. Members. So there has been a unilateral and growing pressure from the Soviet Union.
When we talk about trying to come to some arrangement with the Russians, we must remember the basic fact that they have been pushing the whole time and that, as far as one can see, any arrangement they would accept would involve further concessions by the West. No one in this debate has indicated that that is what he wants us to do.
Among the many interesting speeches, I noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) brought out three basic requirements in relation to our position in Berlin. These are the same as those I stated in the debate to which the hon. Member for Coventry, East referred, and which I will repeat briefly. They are the right of West Berliners—2¼ million of them—to live in freedom, the right of Western troops to guarantee that freedom by their continued presence, and the right of access. The presence of Western troops, as the right hon. Member for Huyton said, is necessary to guarantee the right of access.
We have constantly made it plain to the Russians that all these three rights are essential, and in recent talks it has been clearly stated that the continued presence of Western forces is not a negotiable factor because we believe that it is essential. Their presence rests not only on the arrangements made in 1945, but on the very often expressed wish of the people of West Berlin that they should stay. That is a very important aspect of the picture.
But the East German régime was installed by the Russians to suit their own purposes. In this context, the Russians have no right to assume that any arrangements they come to with those who, after all, are their henchmen can in any way unilaterally affect the continuing right of the West to be in Berlin, or the right of access to the city. That is the crux of the whole argument at present when Mr. Khrushchev says that all he wants is to sign a peace treaty. It is the implications that that statement carries which are so important. This is an obvious fact but there are those who are sometimes taken in by the way in which his point is put.
The West as a whole, and we in particular, want to see a reduction in tension. I take the point of the right hon. Gentleman, repeated by others, about the need for us to endorse the position of Mr. Rusk and the United States Government at the present time. We endorse it fully. We are in complete sympathy with them about the need for further discussions on the basis of the Rusk-Dobrynin talks which have been going on.

Mr. Julius Silverman: We understand from the Press that Mr. Rusk put forward certain proposals to the Russians which were apparently received with some sympathy by Mr. Khrushchev, and we know that, because of intervention by Dr. Adenauer, those proposals have disappeared without trace. What is the position of the United States and British Governments on those proposals?

Mr. Godber: I imagine that the hon. Gentleman is referring to discussions relating to an access authority which were put forward. In fact, they were not welcomed by the Russians at all. They took the name "access authority", but nothing more. They used it as a means, it seemed to me, to confuse the situation.
While they accepted the name, they took away the essence of the plan for an access authority. Indeed, the plan as put forward by the United States Government at that time was rejected, first, by the Communist Press and then by Herr Ulbricht, in a speech he made on 4th May. He categorically rejected the whole plan. This was all before Dr. Adenauer had made any comment about it.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: Nevertheless, whatever the Communist Press and whatever Herr Ulbricht may have said, the last word we had from the Soviet Union was that it would give sympathetic consideration to these remarks. The American proposals were much wider than the hon. Gentleman has suggested and included far more than the access authority. It was left in the air, with the Russians saying that they would give sympathetic consideration to these proposals.

Mr. Godber: The only Russian reaction was directed to the access authority. The whole compass of the paper which the hon. Member has in mind certainly covered a number of other aspects, and I do not deny that for a moment, but they were mostly matters which had been the subjects of discussions with the Russians throughout, and there was nothing particularly new in them. The access authority was a new idea. This proposal was rejected out of hand, first, by the comments of the Russian Press and later by Herr Ulbricht, and it has not been given any serious consideration by the Russians. But all these possibilities are matters which are being considered in the discussions which are going forward.
The discussions, which have been going on since the erection of the wall, started last September in New York among Mr. Rusk, Mr. Gromyko and my noble Friend and have continued in different capitals at slightly different levels more or less continuously since then. They were continued in Moscow between the American Ambassador, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Gromyko, and they were pursued at the meeting of Mr. Rusk, Mr. Gromyko and my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary in Geneva at the start of the Disarmament Conference.
I was present at some of those discussions myself and I saw the unyielding attitude with which we were confronted by the Russians at that time. It will be recalled that that was the time when the Russians were putting further pressures on the air corridors, which did not make things easier. Fortunately, those pressures have now ceased and we have had discussions going on in Washington between Mr. Rusk and Mr. Dobrynin. Those discussion are still continuing.
Future possible moves in relation to these developments seem to come into three different levels. There is the local level in Berlin in relation to matters which a number of hon. Members have particularly mentioned today, matters which are vital and which have aroused keen concern among many hon. Members but which are local in their immediate effect. Although I agree that they could escalate, they are local matters which could be dealt with as such.
We could then have a continuation of the present talks on permanent measures to produce a solution along the lines which I have just been discussing. The right hon. Member for Huyton had in mind matters beyond and outside Berlin, to which he paid particular emphasis, and having a bearing on Berlin.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) took the right hon. Gentleman keenly to task for his reference to the Rapacki Plan. I shall certainly not follow on what I thought was his excellent analysis of the present position.

Mr. H. Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with it?

Mr. Godber: I would say that there is another venue in which the Rapacki Plan could be discussed.
I have defined the three levels. On the first level, the local level, the three Western Powers, in their identical Notes of 25th June, expressed willingness to hold talks in Berlin with a view to reducing tension caused by recent shooting incidents. We are now awaiting the Russian reply to this proposal. I think that it is a realistic and sensible one. If we can pursue things at this level it might be easier to make progress. This is something to which I hope we may be able to get a reply. If so, we may be able to deal with some of these problems and, perhaps, to lower the temperature.
The second level, the Rusk-Dobrynin talks are scheduled to continue. If the three Foreign Ministers go to Geneva, as they may do for final discussions on the Laos Agreement, there will be a possibility for further discussion there.
Various ideas have been put forward in relation to certain things which could be done about a final settlement. One which has occurred in several speeches in the debate has been the question of a United Nations presence in Berlin. I think that that was a suggestion by some of my hon. Friends as well as by some hon. Members apposite. This is a matter to which I have given some thought and which we are very willing to consider sympathetically. It was put forward last autumn. I was in New York at the time, when a great deal of

this was discussed. I sounded out a number of delegations informally about certain aspects. A great many were not very keen for any major United Nations body to go there, but I think that some organisation with its headquarters in Europe might well be considered.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman take advantage of the fact that U Thant is over here, and raise it again?

Mr. Godber: I noted that point, but I think the problem is not so much one for U Thant or the United Nations itself. It is more a question of getting agreement among the Powers concerned that this would be a useful step. I can see the tremendous value of the actual presence of a United Nations organisation such as the F.A.O. which would bring some of the under-developed countries into close contact with the position in Berlin. That would be very valuable. I do not think that we are being held up at the moment with the question of the United Nations having to take a decision, but of the Powers having to agree on the suggestion. Then we could seek the co-operation of U Thant and make him aware of the thought, but I do not think that we could take it further at the moment.

Mr. H. Wilson: It is only a very small point of wording, but the hon. Gentleman turned my argument round and made it sound negative where I meant it to be positive. I was not suggesting that it was important to bring representatives of under-developed countries into contact with the question of Berlin, but that the question of Berlin should be brought into contact with delegates from the underdeveloped areas so that the people in Berlin would have to behave rather differently.

Mr. Godber: I am sorry. I think that it is rather a dual matter. I accept the correction.
I have dealt with two of the three matters I wish to speak about and I now come to the third, which is a rather wider issue. There seems to be already a forum in which discussions of matters bearing on European security can take place. That is the 17-Nation Disarmament Conference in Geneva where I have been myself until recently and


where I shall be returning shortly. We already have there the opportunity to discuss such matters as the dissemination of nuclear weapons, nuclear-free zones, the Rapacki suggestion, the N.A.T.O.-Warsaw Pact problem and the problem of a war breaking out through miscalculation.
All these things have a direct bearing on wider European issues. I am not going to argue the relative merits of these matters. On the Rapacki Plan, I am already on record at Geneva as saying that there are grave problems and I cannot be said to have warmly welcomed the proposals. Nevertheless, these matters can be, and I think should be, discussed there. We have two levels at which contact has already been established between East and West. We have already ways in which I hope these matters can be taken up. It is not channels of communication which are lacking so much as a genuine will to achieve a lasting solution.
I have to say to the Committee that in this sphere, in my own discussions with the Soviet representatives during the last twelve months—and I have been involved in quite a few—I have seen no sign that they are ready to settle any of these issues, other than on their own terms. The one exeption, of course, is Laos, where there has been considerable progress. But in these and in other matters there has been none.
In two instances I have seen the Soviet representatives withdraw from their previous position to take up a position even more intransigent. I hope that we shall be able to make progress, but one must be realistic. Therefore, while we may make progress on the main issue, I hope we shall also make progress on what I have termed small issues—though hon. Members have made the point that they are important. I think that probably that would be the most helpful way of making some progress at the present time.
We continue to try to find a modus vivendi based on the access problem as much as anything else relating to Berlin as a whole while at Geneva we seek a solution to some of the wider East. West issues. That is what we are seeking all the time, a possible solution to the wider issues of general and complete dis-

armament. There are those who say that a solution of the Berlin situation can come about only after reducing the tension by reducing armaments. But it is equally arguable that we can succeed in our disarmament talks only after we have succeeded in reducing the tension over Berlin.
We must keep on trying at all these levels, and that is what the Government are determined to do. I shall see that all the suggestions put forward in this debate are carefully studied. I think that it is valuable that there exists this unanimity of view about what the erection of the Berlin wall has meant. I warmly endorse all that has been said about the restraint and patience shown by the people of West Berlin. It is an example to us in our efforts to try to find some accommodation with those who live on the other side of the Iron Curtain. These people have had a terrible experience. I am sure that some of the expressions which have been voiced tonight will be appreciated by those who dwell in West Berlin.
We have had a valuable debate. The Government will continue with its efforts at all three of the levels to which I have referred to make such progress as is possible and to see whether we can get rid finally of this terrible problem which has dogged us for so long.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill]—put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress: to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I wish to make it clear to hon. Members that this Bill does not effect any change whatever either in the contributions payable to the Members' Fund by hon. Members or by the Treasury, or in the conditions under which payments are made from the Fund to ex-Members or to their widows and dependent


children. The other day hon. Members generously agreed to increase their contributions to the Fund, and we are grateful for the increase in the grant-in-aid from the Treasury. This has enabled us to be a little more generous to many of our older colleagues who have served this House and the nation for a long period.
I wish to take this opportunity to convey to the Government, to the Treasury and to hon. Members the expressions of gratitude which have reached us as trustees from many of our old colleagues. The slightly increased grant which we have been able to make has lessened the anxiety that they feel in the eventide of their lives. This is a very great comfort to us.
The Bill deals solely with the power of the trustees of the Fund to invest the funds which are entrusted to their care.

It being Ten o'clock Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER interrupted the business.
Proceedings on the House of Commons Members' Fund Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

Mr. Griffiths: I was saying that the Bill deals solely with the power vested in the trustees to invest the funds entrusted to our care. These are at present governed by the House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1960. We found from our experience that its specific provisions, its rigidity—far more rigid than other Acts passed by this House governing trusts of this kind—placed us at a disadvantage in that we were not able to use and vary our investments in such a way as to bring benefits to the Fund.
We took our problem to the Leader of the House, and I want to express for my fellow trustees our thanks to him for meeting us and for listening to us. I thank him and the Treasury and the leaders of the parties for helping us in this way. We put our case to them, they listened to us, and they thought that we were disadvantaged and that we ought to have a more varied power. We asked them if they would incorporate these powers in a Bill, with the expert advice that was available to them. They have done so, and this Bill is the result.
I am glad to see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury here, and I am

sure that he will be able and ready to answer any questions. All I can say on behalf of the trustees is that we express thanks for the wider power embodied in the Bill, which I commend to the House in the hope that it will receive a unanimous Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — MEDICAL SERVICES, HINCKLEY AND COALVILLE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill.]

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: I should like to raise tonight a few matters concerning the health services in my constituency. One has to do with maternity units, and another with the dental service, and I should like to start by dealing with the maternity unit side of the problem.
For years, the two major towns in my constituency, Coalville and Hinckley, have been agitating for maternity units. At one stage, it was agreed by the Minister and by all the relevant authorities—the regional hospital boards and so forth—that each town should have its maternity unit, and both towns were delighted. But they did not know, of course, that the bungling and inefficiency at Ministerial level would soon reverse the decision which had given them so much pleasure, because, in 1961, after years of struggling to get these maternity units and achieving the promise, yet another new plan was produced. The Minister decided that the human beings in my constituency ought not to be treated as such, but ought to be dealt with as numbers and grouped geographically, far Ministerial convenience.
As a result, expectant mothers in Coalville have to go 12 or 14 miles to Leicester for ante-natal treatment and confinement. Hinckley is seven miles from Nuneaton, and that looks all right to the planners in Curzon Street, or wherever the Ministry of Health is now, but


from the point of view of giving human:, treatment, it is all wrong, because one cannot get from Hinckley to Nuneaton, even though it is only seven miles, without two bus changes, and, for many expectant mothers, it is three bus changes, according to the areas from which they come. The average time which it takes for all that is just over an hour. I am assured that in fact it takes half a day to go from Hinckley to Nuneaton for pre-natal or ante-natal treatment.
But that is not the worst of it. The nearest bus stop is a place called Coton Arches—a famous name in my constituency. From there they have a quarter of a mile walk up a hill with a 1-in-6 gradient to get to the hospital at the top. Naturally, by the time they get there the expectant mothers are exhausted, tired and irritable. They dread having to make this journey but the Ministry of Health is quite indifferent to that.
At Coalville, the other major town, the average time for the journey to the place which the Ministry has decided to dispatch them is 1¼ hours—to the General Hospital at Leicester. But such is the general difficulty of the bus services that anybody who has to undertake this visit to the General Hospital must expect to use most of the day—from about 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.—to get there and back. These journeys must be made at numerous times before confinement.
Then the time of confinement arrives and the mothers' husbands, relations and friends have to make the same journey to hospital. It is not a matter of seven miles as the crow flies; the journey must be thought of in terms of hours, or half a day, and so forth. Often it is just not possible to do the journey. The Minister appears to think that all the expectant mothers in my constituency drive their own motor cars and that this journey is therefore of no consequence. He also thinks that all the families have motor cars. I feel that the Government have been over-reading their own propaganda about an affluent society, because this time has not yet arrived.
Expectant mothers still have to negotiate extremely difficult bus stages across

country. The Minister seems to know nothing of these difficulties, and to care even less about them. From Hinckley and Coalville we have been belabouring him for years. We all went to see him with a deputation last year and argued with him for 2½ hours, trying to put this human problem to him. He remained, and remains, bureaucratically adamant. He is quite content with his map and his numbers and, I suppose, his bits of string and his pins, which he swings to traverse the area and says, "That is all right. They are not very far away."
The people of Hinckley and Coalville are not content with this doctrinaire planning. People in the Hinckley area have just signed and produced a petition to try to move the stubborn stones that pass for hearts at the Ministry of Health. Fifteen thousand of the people of Hinckley have done so, which, even on a democratic, or, if one likes, a purely electoral basis, might make the Ministry pause to think whether it is on the right lines. That petition is just for one town in my constituency. The other town produced a similar petition the year before.
In all the time that I have been a Member of the House I have never known such strong feeling as there is on this issue. I know what the Minister will say, because he has said it before. He will say, "These mothers will get much better treatment in these big central units, and it is very important to concentrate all the specialist skill at a central unit. We must not dissipate our energies and resources." I can see the force of that argument but it does not work out in practice. That is the trouble with the planners at the Ministry. They do not understand the human problems involved, and they assume that because they have made their little sums everything will be all right at the other end.
The first thing that happens, however, is that the family doctor is unable to get to the central unit to look after the expectant mother with whom he has had a long-term association. He is unable to maintain that association, and the mother has to start going straight away to the central unit because the general practitioner knows that he will be unable to do so, and to see her at the proper times. That cannot be good


medically, and it is certainly not good emotionally and psychologically.
Secondly, the big units are short of staff. It is not even certain that expectant mothers will get the best treatment if they go to these units. The general practitioner maternity units which could be set up and which were once promised for Hinckley and Coalville could be staffed in both towns, because local doctors are anxious to give their time to such units.
As the Ministry has been told, we have long lists of midwives and nurses who are now married and who are living in the locality. They, too, are anxious to give their services to maternity units but they cannot find time to go all the way to Leicester or Nuneaton to work at the central units. As I say, there is no difficulty of staffing and it is only the general bureaucratic indifference of the Ministry that prevents these local units from being set up.
It is not certain that one receives better treatment from the central units, although it looks as though one should on paper. That is all the Ministry cares about. It is likely, in many respects, that one may get worse treatment and, as I have said, there are emotional and psychological factors involved. Expectant mothers hate long journeys and hate being cut off from contact with their family doctors, especially at the precise moment of confinement. This is very much proved by their violent reaction to the Minister's bureaucratic insolence of allocating them to centres as though they were cattle rather than Englishwomen.
This all represents a sort of futuristic nightmare in which doctrinaire, Conservative planners treat people as so many dreary production units without reference to the feelings of the people concerned. This is proved by the growing number who go into private nursing homes nearer their homes rather than make these arduous and difficult journeys. The whole purpose of the National Health Service—which is already being run down fairly fast by the Government —is being defeated because expectant mothers are being forced by this treatment into saying that they will not use the service but will save their money so that they can be treated properly nearer their homes.
I cannot understand why, if it were once thought possible to have these units in Hinckley and Coalville, the Ministry should suddenly decide that it has become impossible. If it could be done once why cannot it be done now? Why does the Ministry continue in its determination to carry on in the way I have described with bits of paper, string, maps, and so on?
Since the Minister decided not to provide general practitioner maternity units, a committee of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, a powerful and eminent group of people, has reported that precisely such maternity units should be provided and are specially suited to the conditions which exist in Hinckley and Coalville, both in size and location. But, of course, the Minister is not interested in that. "It is just another of those reports produced by interfering busybodies," he no doubt considers. The Minister probably regards it as a report which might disturb the smooth, tramlike operation of his plan which is not going to work in the long run, in any case.
I suppose that it is a forlorn hope, even at this late hour, that he may reconsider his inhuman decision. It was certainly not a human one, for it did not take the human factor into account. Had it done so these units would have been provided. The units could be provided simply and cheaply and, as I have said, adequate staff would be available. It would certainly not prevent the Minister from being able to keep alive his idea, quite a good one, of having central units where the specialist services could be concentrated.
I turn to the problem of dental services in my constituency. There is supposed to be a school dental service but, as part of the general deterioration of the National Health Service under the present Government, it has totally collapsed for half of my constituents. There is not a single school dentist in the whole of the Hinckley area and the only thing that can be obtained is emergency treatment, and then only with enormous difficulties and long distances to travel.
There is no conservation of teeth or six-monthly routine treatments, although everyone knows that this is vital for dental care, particularly with children. We have repeatedly drawn the attention


of the Minister to this. This matter is not the hon. Lady's direct concern, but she and her right hon. Friend have not taken the slightest notice, because they do not care. I understand it has been agreed that she will reply on these points.
Although the Hinckley area of the Bosworth constituency pays an education rate like everybody else, it does not get that to which it is entitled. The result is the rapid decay of children's teeth is over half my constituency—and every doctor and medical officer of health will say the same. This is an appalling situation for the future, and it is something from which no recovery can ever be made because of the neglect of the Government to provide the school dental services which they think exist, but which in fact do not.
It would not be so bad if there were a sufficient number of ordinary dentists in my constituency, because then if the children could not be attended to at school they could visit a dentist in ordinary practice. But once again there are too few of them in my constituency. Every dentist is fully booked for six months ahead—at least he was until the other day. If someone in the Hinckley area wants an appointment with a dentist under the National Health Service, he is not able to get one for six months. This is obviously bad not only for children but for adults. One can, however, get an appointment if one is willing to become a private patient.
By its failure to provide sufficient dentists in my area, the Ministry is encouraging a kind of racket, a sort of blackmail, and really egging dentists on to say to a patient, "I should opt out of the Health Service if I were you", and promise him that if he becomes a private patient for more money he will see him. This is bad for the general morale of the dental service in the Hinckley area.
Lately the position has improved slightly because two Australian dentists have set up in practice. But even so we are nit anything like up to the standard of one dentist for every 3,500 people. We are nowhere near that. At the moment we have about one dentist for every 10,000 people. It

is impossible to get dental appointments for newcomers to the town. This applies to both children and adults. Our new town clerk had to wait 18 months before he was able to see the dentist whom he had been clamouring to see. Is Hinckley the worst area in the country for dental services, or is it just average under the general decay of the dental service under the administration of this Government? Time and again we have asked about this, and nothing has been done to improve the situation.
Can the hon. Lady say whether the Government think that it is sensible to go on with so-called school dental services when they do not appear to operate at all? In the County of Leicestershire only two and a half dentists are operating the school dental services. I was puzzled about what half a dentist was doing, but he is accounted for by the fact that he is a part-time operator and gives only half his time to the job. It is ridiculous that we have two and a half dentists for the whole county. Are the Government going to attempt seriously to get more dentists for school dental services by putting up salaries and improving conditions, or do they propose to abandon this and say that these dentists should be added to the general dental service?
Again, why have the Government no kind of equalisation system for dentists, such as I believe operates for doctors? Even the present Government have realised that it is wrong to have more than three or four doctors to each person in a place like Eastbourne! After a time they say that that may be fashionable but nevertheless there are far too many doctors there and some should go elsewhere. But this does not appear to happen with regard to dentists. I should like to know why not, and why this could not be operated. If there ever was an under-dentisted—I do not know whether that is a real word—area, it certainly is Hinckley, unless the Minister tells me that it is an average area, in which case I cannot imagine what is happening to the teeth of the population generally.
No doubt we shall have the usual excuses about the difficulty of getting dentists, staff and doctors, and how hard it is because of the salaries, and so on.


It really is not good enough. The plain truth is that the dental services seem to be on the way towards collapse, and the maternity unit provisions in my constituency are both inhuman and totally inadequate. I should now like to hear what the hon. Lady has to say about this.

10.21 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): I should feel that the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) expressed more real concern about the services in his area if his speech had been less bitter and less biased. That is contrary to the thanks he expressed to my right hon. Friend after he had received the deputation which he mentioned.
Further, if the hon. Member had sent me a note in advance, as I asked him to do, of the points he had in mind, and as is customary in connection with Adjournment debates, I might have been able to be more specific and more helpful in my reply. As it is, he has taken twenty minutes of the time, leaving me only ten; he has raised a large number of points, a number of which are not the responsibility of my Department, and, therefore, I do not propose to try to touch on the school dental service. I shall begin with the general dental service.
The position in Hinckley and district, where there is a total population of about 41,000, has improved within the last few days. There are now 10 dentists in the area. In a letter to the hon. Member a few days ago I said that there were eight. I am happy to say that the position has improved in the last few days. It is expected that there will be 12 there in the near future.
The Coalville and Ashby-de-la-Zouche district has a total population of about 33,000. These towns are about five miles apart and between them have eight dentists. There are facilities in neighbouring major towns, such as Leicester. Hinckley and Coalville are 14 miles from Leicester, and the distance from Ashby is about 19 miles, and I am told that there are good transport facilities available by road and rail. There are 75 dentists in the Leicester city area serving a population of under 300,000 people. This is a ratio of one to 4,000 people. The number of persons per dentist in the Hinckley district is roughly 4,100 and

in the Coalville and Ashby district 4,250, which compares with 4,570 for the country as a whole.

Mr. Wyatt: rose—

Miss Pitt: I will not give way. The hon. Member has taken too much time already.
As to the shortage of dentists, it is true that patients in Hinckley and Coalville may find difficulty in obtaining treatment or in doing so without some delay. This is a national problem. There is a shortage of dentists in most pants of the country. The degree of shortage in particular areas may vary considerably. But, as I have already mentioned, the ratio of dentists taking part in the general dental service to the population in Hinckley and Coalville is a little above the national average. In any event, we have no power to direct dentists to serve in particular areas, and even if we had a relative improvement in one area could be achieved only at the expense of another.
As to the numbers of dentists, the position nationally has improved somewhat over recent years. The number of dentists on the United Kingdom register increased from 15,052 at the end of 1949 to 16,007 at the end of 1956 and 16,619 at the end of 1961. The actual number of dentists taking part in the general dental service in England and Wales in 1961 was 10,450. Comparable figures are not available, since the records of dentists in the general dental service in earlier years contained some element of duplication, but on a basis which is comparable over the years, there was an increase in the number of dentists in the general dental service in England and Wales of about 800 between 1956 and 1961.
For the same period there has been an increase in the whole-time equivalent number of dentists taking part in local authority dental services from 1,126 to 1,179 or an increase of about 50. Despite this increase in the number of dentists and the still greater increase in the amount of treatment they have been able to provide, the shortage persists. The Government have made plans for expanding the training facilities for dentists with the ultimate object of achieving an annual output from the schools of about 800 qualified dentists who will practise in the United Kingdom. The


present output is about 560. These plans entail the expansion of nine dental schools and the creation of a new one in Wales. Building has already begun on three of these and is expected to begin in the near future on two others.
I turn to the maternity services. It is quite true that the hon. Member has been pressing my right hon. Friend for some time now to provide maternity units at Hinckley and Coalville and that he brought deputations from the two towns, who put forward the views of the local people, which we know are strongly held, and which have been very forcefully put to my right hon. Friend. There is need for a better hospital maternity service for each area, but the right course is not to build new units there.
The general policy for the future of hospital maternity services has developed from the recommendations of the Cranbrook Committee, with its emphasis on specialist care where specialist care is needed and on the need for close physical association of specialist and general practitioner beds, and for the concept of the district general hospital. The argument for this is set out in the Hospital Plan, where it is said that the district hospital offers the most practical method of placing the full range of hospital facilities at the disposal of patients.
The policy is designed to secure the best possible hospital service for the mother and her baby, and far from expectant mothers being treated as numbers, our whole concern and the most important of our considerations is this point of providing the best possible service, and I am sure that the hon. Member's constituents will agree with that.

Mr. Wyatt: They do not.

Miss Pitt: The Hospital Plan says:
A maternity unit will be a normal part of the district general hospital where full and continuous consultant cover will be at hand for all beds, including those which should be available to general practitioners for the care of their own patients undergoing normal confinements.
This policy does mean, as my right hon. Friend has told the hon. Member, that to reach a modern, fully-equipped unit with consultant advice readily at hand may mean longer travelling for many, but he also said that he is sure

that when the new units are built people will be glad to pay this price. The Hospital Plan does recognise that there are cases where a local unit which is many miles from the district general hospital should be retained.
The application of this policy to Hinckley is this. Hinckley is about five miles from Nuneaton in the Birmingham region, and Hinckley is in the Sheffield hospital region. At Nuneaton, there is a maternity unit at the George Eliot Hospital. This hospital is to be redeveloped, and the first phase of the work is to be a new and larger maternity unit, work on which is expected to start in two or three years' time. The right course, and the course which is being followed, is to provide the maternity beds, including the general practitioner maternity beds, for the Hinckley area in this new hospital. The right place for the general practitioner beds is at this specialist hospital, and not five miles away from it. The people of Hinckley may think that it is too difficult a journey and may be unwilling to go there, but it is not so very far for them or for their general practitioners to travel.
At Coalville, the position is rather different. The nearest consultant maternity beds are at Leicester, about 13 miles away. There is an admitted deficiency there, and the Hospital Plan contains proposals far increasing the number, but about five miles away at Ashby there is a 13-bed general practitioner maternity unit where provision is made for general practitioner maternity beds for Coalville. There is also at Loughborough, about 10 miles away but not very convenient, I agree, for Coalville people, a 12-bed general practitioner maternity unit. What is needed in this area is an improved service for the majority of hospital cases which require the care of consultants. These will be provided at Leicester. Thirteen miles away from Coalville in the opposite direction a new maternity unit is also, under the proposals of the Hospital Plan, to be built at Burton-on Trent.
The hon. Member referred to the Report of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and he has been in correspondence with my right


hon. Friend on this matter. I have armed myself with the answers, but there will not be time to give them in detail.
A 25-bed unit is regarded as desirable and suitable in densely populated areas, but a unit of this size would not he necessary in less concentrated areas. It is on this point that the views of the College may be said to diverge from those of my right hon. Friend in regarding a small isolated maternity unit as a desirable provision. In general, the views of the Report support the view that we take. The College's Report lists the type of cases which would generally be regarded as unsuitable for confinement in a general practitioner maternity unit.
Analysis of it shows that it would involve the admission of the majority of cases of hospital confinements to specialist maternity units. This would leave so small a proportion of confinements to take place in general practitioner maternity units that, unless all confinements were taking place in hospitals—which, of course, is far from being the position—there would seldom be a sufficient aggregation of population away from a centre with a district general hospital to justify a separate maternity unit.
For neither Hinckley nor Coalville could anything like a 25-bed general prac-

titioner maternity unit be justified. The College, in referring to "some distance" from the main hospital, does not define that distance. There will be a case for small units in some isolated places—the Hospital Plan envisages a distance of 15 to 20 miles—but neither Hinckley nor Coalville can be said to be sufficiently isolated.
I know that the hon. Member feels that there are dangers in planning too much for big centres and leaving out the feelings of the individual some distance from those big centres. But I am sure that to provide small units in all towns such as Hinckley and Coalville would dissipate our resources and would not be in the best interests of the patient. I am sure that if they do not already do so, the people will come to accept the soundness of the policy of the Hospital Plan.

Mr. Wyatt: May I ask the hon. Lady why she does not intend to answer about the school dental service and——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half-an-hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.